SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
June 22, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

June 22, 2011 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

  • The family of Matilda Garnica, the 43 year old mother who was killed last year after a car collided with her during the 4th of July fireworks show on Valencia Blvd, is suing the City, the County, Westfield, and even the fireworks company over her death. The plaintiff’s lawyer, Jeffrey Hacker (of the Hacker/Braly law firm I think) says that the accident “could have been prevented by simply closing Valencia Boulevard to traffic while the fireworks were taking place or taking other simple precautions.”  The City’s counsel says that’s nonsense and claims that the City has “no culpability here.” The Signal says the city has yet to determine how it will handle traffic for this year 4th of July show. SIGNAL, KHTS
  • I haven’t had the chance to watch it yet, but you should: Leon Worden interviews Deputy City Manager Darren Hernandez and new City librarian Ed Kieczykowski (Ketch-u-kowski) SCVTV
  • Also on the topic of libraries, the Canyon Country library is apparently not floating away and officials still have yet to determine why water is leaking in part of the building. But they still plan to reopen it July 1 even if it means roping off part of the building. The city also announced yesterday that there will be a kids reading program at the libraries starting July 1 SIGNAL , CITY BRIEFS
  • Old murder files #1: a convicted murderer confessed this week to being solely responsible for the murder of a Canyon Country man in 1995. The other man convicted in that death is appealing his conviction SIGNAL
  • Old murder files #2: and authorities are considering digging up some land neaer Santa Barbara to find the remains of a 7 year old girl who went missing in 1961 and is thought to have been a victim of notorious serial killer Mack Ray Edwards. Edwards, who hung himself in the early 70s, killed children in the SCV too. DAILY NEWS
  • Tammy Marashlian has more details on how the SCV Food Service Agency nearly appeared on Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution TV show. The agency’s talks with the producer of the show broke down over how the agency would be portrayed on TV SIGNAL
  • The Valley Industrial Association played host to Dan Schnur, one of my favorite political thinkers, at a luncheon yesterday. Schnur discussed state and national politics, particularly the 2012 election SIGNAL
  • Speaking of politics, state controller John Chiang has decided not to pay California’s Senate and Assembly members after their failure to pass a balanced budget last week. Cam Smyth, who previously told the VeCo Star he’d be living off his credit card if his pay was halted, tells KHTS’ Carol Rock that the halt in pay will have the perverse effect of making the legislature want to please the Controller, rather than the people. KHTS
  • But it looks like Chiang’s move has worked; lawmakers are back talking about the budget LA TIMES
  • LTE writer wonders if fracking for natural gas is going on in Rye Canyon SIGNAL
  • Gary Horton chronicles the super high cost of our military industrial system while Buck McKeon tours the Bureau of Public Debt and says we need to get all austere up in here, except, of course, on military spending

Comments (37)

  1. Timothy Myers SR.June 22, 2011 at 8:29 am
    The word is out on Food Revolution that they attempt to portray everyone as opposed to healthy food and we need Chef Jamie to save us all. Both LAUSD and now the SCV have bailed out so I don’t see them moving forward easily. I believe they did a season in West Virginia and pretty much brought out every negative hillbilly stereotype that one could think of.
  2. ToddJune 22, 2011 at 8:40 am
    I had heard (I think via my sister) that Burbank USD was also on the list, but they didn’t go forward because of many of the same issues… Looks like the producers painted themselves into a corner and are going to have a real hard time getting out.
  3. NFICJune 22, 2011 at 9:21 am
    Just make sure you don’t vote for any new bond measures in the future because without tax increases, the State has no way to pay for them. I think too many people don’t connect the dots…..
  4. NFICJune 22, 2011 at 9:22 am
    Post belonged below…
  5. LindaJune 22, 2011 at 10:21 am
    It is unfortunate in this case that “reality TV” is not interested in manufacturing drama and labeling people as “evil” or “victims.” If they were to approach the subject in a more sympathetic style (say like “Undercover Boss” or “Extreme Makeover”) they would have a better chance of actually accomplishing something worthwhile.
  6. spineflower2June 22, 2011 at 8:43 am
    Kudos to the Controller for withholding lawmaker pay. These clowns need to do their job to get paid. How is that so hard for them to understand? And now the delay is fouling up DMV license fee collection– they are holding off sending out registration notices while this confusion over the amount rages on. So in the meantime Cali doesn’t collect ANY of those taxes, further hampering our budget solution. Do your job, Cam, and you will get paid, same as all us working stiffs.
  7. LarMccJune 22, 2011 at 9:00 am
    I was at the DMV yesterday and they had no problem taking my money and handing me my registration. I think it’s great that lawmaker pay is being withheld. At the same time, I support Smyth for standing his ground and not agreeing to extend and more taxes in our state. The state takes in enough money, they just need to use it better.
  8. MikeJune 22, 2011 at 8:56 am
    I wish I would have known Dan Schnur was coming to town. In college, I would watch a Sacramento PBS show, California Capitol Report, with Jack Kavanaugh ( http://www.rtumble.com the godfather of the “daily brief” style-site) where he would discuss the week in politics with a much younger Dan Schnur representing the GOP and another person representing the Democrats (can’t remember). I’ve always loved listening to him, even when I disagree with him. Few seem to “get” politics as well as he does.
  9. Leon WordenJune 22, 2011 at 9:22 am
    Mike – We will post & run the Dan Schnur event soon, probably tonight or tomorrow.
  10. MikeJune 22, 2011 at 9:44 am
    Excellent! I can’t wait. Thanks for the good work.
  11. joshmannJune 22, 2011 at 9:48 am
    Schnur was very good. Although, in reflecting on his astute analysis, I don’t feel any better about the fate of California. He did note that redistricting may be the linchpin needed to create middle ground again in California. Otherwise, we stand to continue along the “party of tax” and “party of cut” divide that we have now.
  12. James FarleyJune 22, 2011 at 9:55 am
    Re: 4th July accident lawsuit. The first sentence in the Signal calls this a ‘freak’ accident. This accident was anything but a freak accident. Poor/distracted driving behaviour near a crowd caused it. Very predictable, not ‘freak’. I don’t really see where the city is liable. The suit should be directed at the driver.
  13. LindaJune 22, 2011 at 10:16 am
    This lawsuit isn’t about justice — it’s about making money. There is no money in suing the driver — the policy limits would be all the insurance company pays, and it is highly unlikely that the young woman has the kind of assets Hacker and his clients are looking for. The “deep pockets” of government and businesses are a better source of funds.
  14. CCJune 22, 2011 at 10:20 am
    So true. We are in the age of “someone else is responsible”
  15. JeffJune 22, 2011 at 10:36 am
    That’s what the courts are there for, to determine the merits of cases like this. If the city truly has no culpability in this, as their young counsel boldly stated, then the city will have their chance before a judge and jury. I support the right of victims to seek compensation from powerful entities like the city. And you should too. Because someday that person could be you seeking compensation and justice for the one you love.
  16. ToddJune 22, 2011 at 12:00 pm
    Meanwhile, we taxpayers foot the bill for the City to defend itself. Awesome.
  17. JeffJune 22, 2011 at 12:10 pm
    Yeah, it bites, I know. Here’s hoping that if, nothing else, the city learns to appreciate risk management more when it comes to crowds and public events
  18. Coastal SageJune 22, 2011 at 6:21 pm
    Yes, and in terms of the City defending itself in traffic death related litigation, the City has a history of using its expensive City Attorney law firm, Burke Williams & Sorensen, rather than normal insurance defense counsel who know how to defend a case in a cost effective manner. BW&S is a good law firm, but there is no logic in letting someone whose specialty is NOT defending wrongful death and intersection design liability cases do the legal work which could be better and more cheaply done by a good insurance defense firm. I say this because of the long, drawn out, expensive process the City went through defending, by BW&S as its lawyer, a lawsuit involving the death of a kid killed in a cross walk which had been painted on the street, as a favor to someone approved by former City Manager George Caravalho, without the City having done the requisite traffic engineering study before deciding to place the cross walk where it was located and where the kid was killed. BW&S made a bundle in attorneys fees on that one, with Frank (I went to law school but never practiced law) Ferry urging BW&S on to stonewall the plaintiffs and hide what the City hadn’t done to make sure the cross walk was safe.
  19. CCJune 22, 2011 at 12:17 pm
    Well, then there is the option of cancelling all events that could in any way be perceived as putting the City at risk for frivolous lawsuits. Of course there will always be the people who feel that if the sun causes skin cancer, the City should have planted more trees.
  20. LarMccJune 22, 2011 at 11:46 am
    And if someone who brought in income or value to your family was killed, you would forgo a lawsuit especially if you felt there was some negligence on their part? It’s easy to paint people as money hungry until it happens to you. I am sure this ladies family would trade any money they would be awarded to have her back. There are people that think the city was wrong in not providing better traffic control, so the suit has merit. This issue will be decided in court, which is where it belongs.
  21. LindaJune 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    I think accidents are why we have insurance. And no, I would not be suing the city in this situation, had it been a family member of mine. And I certainly wouldn’t be suing the city had I been merely a spectator at this accident either, as some are doing. But I have no objection to the “victims” having their day in court. It will certainly be an interesting case to watch, if it is actually tried. I hope that the city takes it to trial and doesn’t settle, although that may not be in their interest given the caliber of legal counsel they generally employ.
  22. JeffJune 22, 2011 at 1:06 pm
    What’s with the ironic/sarcastic quote symbols around “victims”?
  23. BrookJune 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    From Linda’s post “victims” to me include the people who are suing because they were spectators the accident. While riding a Van Nuys Flyaway bus on a fast-moving 405 (that’s a crazy statement in itself), from my front row seat I watched a motorcyclist get clipped by another vehicle right in front of us. He was then thrown into oncoming traffic on the other side of the the 405. We watched as he struggled to get up on obviously broken legs. It was horrifying, I still remember the screams of those on our bus as it unfolded. I would never think for a second to sue those “responsible”. But that’s just me.
  24. LindaJune 22, 2011 at 2:41 pm
    Apparently, the plaintiffs believe themselves to be victims of the city’s negligence rather than of an accidental event. I disagree. That is all I was trying to get across.
  25. CCJune 22, 2011 at 3:03 pm
    What do you want to bet that some lawyer talked the family into suing?
  26. Coastal SageJune 22, 2011 at 6:24 pm
    Linda, the reality is that the plaintiff doesn’t get to decide who to sue. The insurance company for the principal defendant (the driver of the car) would cross complain against everyone in sight, including the City, even if a fair minded person such as you would decide to leave the City out of the lawsuit. That’s just how California’s auto accident cases are litigated, like it or not.
  27. LindaJune 22, 2011 at 7:02 pm
    The plaintiff doesn’t “have” to sue anyone. But I understand the shotgun approach is always taken when a lawsuit is filed, and there are always plenty of DOES so that more defendants can be named as needed.
  28. CartmanJune 22, 2011 at 10:20 am
    Maybe they should include the cell phone manufacturer and provider in the lawsuit for not including a warning about the dangers of talking while driving? Apparently, the family of the driver must not have sufficient assets to assuage their pain. I’m not making light of the tragedy. I was there and it was horrific. But, to sue everyone who has deep pockets instead of the person responsible now makes this a money grab, pure and simple.
  29. MikeJune 22, 2011 at 10:34 am
    Maybe I’m crazy, but if I were to sue the city for a boatload of cash, I don’t think I’d go to the firm where the other partner is the lobbyist for half of all city-registered clients before the City Council.
  30. TheGodfatherJune 22, 2011 at 11:10 am
    I say: “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer … “
  31. Mr PerezJune 22, 2011 at 11:21 am
    Unless maybe you are just looking for a settlement….
  32. Timothy Myers SR.June 22, 2011 at 12:08 pm
    Mike: That just gives you an indication of how Hacker and Braly must think this is a real, paying case. Otherwise people would be concerned it would impact Hunt’s ability as a City lobbyist.
  33. LindaJune 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm
    I’m sure Hacker raised hackles at city hall by serving the press before he served the defendants.
  34. Lori RivasJune 22, 2011 at 4:42 pm
    Ah, Leon, so that is what you look like. Kind of soft-balled the questions to Darren and Ed, didn’t you? Did you ask what the about the educational degrees of the new library managers? Could have asked for more details on the employee benefit packages, too. And, you could have asked about who and how many people dropped off the CPLAC after 2 or 3 meetings, and why they stopped attending.
  35. Coastal SageJune 22, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    Jeffrey Hacker, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the 4th of July crash, is a very good trial lawyer. As a result, I am hopeful the defendants’ insurance companies will “get real” fairly quickly and settle.
  36. PetzJune 23, 2011 at 6:22 am
    I hope Coastal Sage “gets real “and recognizes that the city has zero liability in this case and there is an assumumtion of risk when you stand next to a busy thoroughfare. Petz supports loser pays and Hacker might be more careful about the clients he takes on.
  37. NateJune 23, 2011 at 6:12 pm
    Jeff from what I can tell by reading these comments most people seem to see this lawsuit as nothing more then a greedy cash grab…

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support