December 4, 2013 – Daily Brief

By Jeff Wilson

Wow so much news I almost need to do twice-Daily briefs to keep up. Here goes and pardon the brevity:

Politico calls it: McKeon is officially pondering retirement next year. I guess even an Animal Husbandry major couldn't keep that horse in the barn, especially after GOP stalwarts from both the east and west of the SCV were outed and/or announced that they would seek to replace our Congressman. That's right Steve of the Knight klan, hailing from AV, will take on Tony "Beanstalk" Strickland, dragging his carpet over from Ventura. GOP feathers to fly. Also McKeon endorses Thornberry as head of HASC since even if he ran again in 2014, he's termed out of the powerful Chairperson role. POLITICO, SIGNAL
Doh: The City of Santa Clarita increased the speed limit on the street where Paul Walker and Roger Rodas were killed Saturday during a review of speed limits city-wide last year. Also, the CHP tells the LA TIMES that officers themselves can hear drag races going on on Rye Canyon all the time. But you know, they can only do something if they catch them. LA TIMES
Valencia, Built as Promised: Quote from the Times piece: "“It’s a great road for racing your car up and down because it’s a sweeping curve," Lyon said. "If you come up here at 10 or 11 at night, you’ll hear the performance cars racing in the area.”He said that if people are going to race, the street is probably the safest place to do it because it's so quiet and there are no pedestrians."
In other Walker news, his sister is outraged at talk that people think Walker may have been enjoying spirited motoring prior to his death, Deputies are going to start ticketing people because mourners are parking in a hazardous way and driving poorly, Vin Diesel made an appearance yesterday at the roadside memorial and the paparazzi flew helicopters to capture the sad scene, Tyrese Gibson will organize the funeral for his friend Walker, automotive experts at TMZ suspect a power steering failure may have caused the crash, we may learn autopsy results today, and finally, the Signal has advice for you on how to talk to your children about the death of Paul Walker.
Almost forgot: There will be big memorial on Sunday for Walker and Rodas. Race fans are organizing and it'll be held at the crash site. FACEBOOK, Smith @ KHTS
How did a Jeep come to be stuck on the railroad tracks near the Newhall train station? Well it did, and it was empty thankfully, but a Metrolink train struck it Monday night. Car is ruined but no one was hurt in the train or on the ground. SIGNAL
Shenkman, the attorney who spoiled Palmdale's party and just might have succeeded in getting their municipal election tossed out, says he may repeat the same process against Santa Clarita ahead of our April 2014 election. Which would be incredible. You thought 2012 was dramatic? SIGNAL
Really now: The big Hart/Valencia game on Friday evening won't be held at COC but rather Valencia High's substandard field because Valencia should get "home" advantage. Valencia's stadium isn't subpar exactly, it just can't hold as many crazy high school football fans as COC, 2000 less to be specific. And come on, COC is every high school's home stadium. Hey Refs, let the fans attend! SIGNAL
Friend and sharp open space financial accountability panel member Jim Farley was somewhat taken aback at a recent Planning Commission meeting when he saw Commissioners delay approval for a cell phone tower that looked like a Eucalyptus tree. Why'd they delay? Well, some SCVers protested the cellular tower installations because they're afraid of cancer rays. Here here to Jim's point! Science people. You do know that microwave radiation is all around and passing through you everywhere you are, right? From wifi to cosmic rays, there's no escaping it. So please let the cell companies build their awesome camoflauge-faux-Eucalyptus-tree-towers so we can all have more precious 4G. FACEBOOK

Comments (14)

IHeartSCVWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 11:07 am

I think Louis C.K. when I read an article like The Signal's on discussing death with children--his jokes about how there's not really an option to hold off on the death talk if you're growing up someplace like Afghanistan. But I guess since Paul Walker's the only person to have died in Santa Clarita this year, it's a timely article.

timothymyers02Wednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 1:32 pm

On the chances for a temporary injunction against the City elections in 2014 Shenkman has an excellent chance. One of the standards for a temporary injunction is the likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing at trial and in light of the Palmdale decision that certainly seems more likely than it was. With an injunction in place I guess the incumbents would continue in office until the situation is resolved completely. The ultimate armor of incumbency!

Coastal SageWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 8:32 pm

Today I was on the phone with one of the actual FOUNDERS of the City of Santa Clarita. For those who don't remember, the Cityhood Formation Committee was a diverse group, including SCOPE's President the late Mike Kotch and Chamber of Commerce/Republican stalwart the late Art Donnelly. The group had meetings with the staff members of LAFCO, who met at length with the committee, guiding them in making critical choices about how to structure the city: Elected Mayor (like Simi Valley) or rotating councilman mayor, councilmanic districts or at-large Council elections. The FOUNDER told me that the Cityhood Formation Committee unanimously chose at-large Council districts, because they wanted all 5 Council members to be accountable to the voters, and that they particularly disliked the LA City system of councilmanic districts where the Councilman is "a king in his kingdom". The FOUNDER said they knew the reality which existed 25 years ago and which pretty much exists now: Arrange enough in campaign contributions and a Councilman in LA will support your development project, even if your actual constituents hate it. So let's focus on reality. The Democrat dominated California Legislature enacted the law which Parris/Shenkman now seek to enforce. As a "gift to contingency fee lawyers" the statute is explicit that the plaintiffs in this sort of lawsuit are entitled to collect attorneys fees and litigation costs (not the narrower category "court costs") if they prevail. That's the only conceivable reason 99% of the contingency fee lawyer community would bother litigating under this law. Notable, if they lose the case, they don't have to pay the city's or a school district's attorneys fees or costs. Messrs. Parris & Shenkman have not yet submitted their fee and cost bill for approval by the judge in the Palmdale case, but it will be a public record when they make their attorneys fees motion. The only appellate case which discusses attorneys fees under the California Voting Rights Act is the "Madera" case, and the contingency fee lawyers in that case asked for $1.7 Million in attorneys fees and litigation costs from a small school district. With respect to the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs issue, it's also important to point out that under the attorneys fees provision in the California Voting Rights Act, reference is slyly made to a case called Serrano v. Priest, which was one of the earliest cases where contingency fee lawyers were awarded attorneys fees in "civil rights" cases. What is insidious about that reference is that since the mid 1990's (or earlier) the California courts have embellished those attorneys fees collection rights by adopting a Federal law concept called "the lodestar". SImply stated, if the plaintiffs prevail the attorneys fees which can be sought are based on the lawyer's normal hourly rate, plus a multiplier or lodestar to compensate the lawyer for taking the case on contingency. Back in the early 2000's, the LA Superior Court would grant lodestar attorneys fees at 1.5 times the lawyer's normal hourly rate, meaning that if the lawyer's normal hourly rate was $400 per hour, he could bill at $600 per hour in that public interest case. At that same time period (early 2000's) the lodestar in the Bay Area was 2 or 2.5 times towards the lawyer's normal hourly rates. The other trick played by many law firms who take cases where lodestar attorneys fees are possible is assigning the most expensive lawyer in the firm to do the work (e.g. Parris rather than a young lawyer) plus billing lots of line items for unnecessary legal work, which lawyers typically cannot collect from their corporate or insurance company clients. However, in lodestar cases the typical trial judge does not bother to careful look at the bill and cross out "extra work or too much work". Sometimes if the trial judge likes the contingency fee lawyer, the trial judge "trusts" the lawyer not to run up unnecessary or outright fraudulent line items on the bill. I got to read the transcript of the hearing on the attorneys fees awarded the property owner in the Golden Valley Road condemnation case, and it was crystal clear that the judge...who had a bad reputation for 'ethics' to begin with...didn't even bother to critique and do cross-outs on the contingency fee lawyers' hourly billing. The risk of having to pay Parris & Shenkjman at an outlandish hourly lodestar rate, or inflated/bogus hours charged, is one of the principal reasons one Santa Clarita area school district decided to divide itself into districts rather than fighting in court. After speaking with the person who is one of the FOUNDERS my two throughts are: (1) A group of citizens, including both FOUNDERS and smart people like Allan Cameron (whose comment on Luke Money's article is worth reading) need to form their own group and intervene in the case, opposing the creation of districts. They all have a liberty interest which the Democrats in the California Legislature and Messrs. Parris & Shenkman seek to take away from them. While the California Supreme Court has already refused to consider one appeal from enforcement of this law (the "Modesto case") the FOUNDERS and bipartisan voters have standing to take their claims to the California Supreme Court if necessary. However, they've got to intervene quickly, before the case gets rolling. (2) Santa Claritans should consider writing and adopting a City Charter which would be written so that in enacting the charter, the charter ballot measure could discuss at length why Santa Claritans want at-large elections. If the charter was adopted by the voters, the city could then argue that the charter city's provisions for at-large voting are outside of the California Voting Rights Act's requirements. That sort of charter election would make litigation of this case far more time consuming and costly for Messrs. Parris and Shenkman. One key point to be made about the Palmdale case. The City of Palmdale was represented by Richards Watson Dreyfus & Gershon, a big "municipal law firm" whih has been around for at least 30 years. They are very competent, and they were defeated at trial by Messrs. Parris and Shenkman. Richards Watson and Santa Clarita's City Attorney law firm, Burke Williams & Sorensen, compete for the same clients and are rated as equals in the municipal lawyering business. So no one should assume that just because Santa Clarita uses "a big law firm" that the city is going to win. The city's leadership needs to look at what Richards Watson did in the Palmdale case, and figure out why they lost, as well as throwing in new issues and complications so that the California Voting Righs Act cases do not become the equivalent of "shooting fish in a barrel" for contingency fee lawyers.

MikeThursday, December 5th, 2013 at 9:21 am

"is one of the principal reasons one Santa Clarita area school district decided to divide itself into districts rather than fighting in court" What now?

jim solizWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 1:50 pm

Thank you for the thought. I personally rephrase the last sentence to read: "The ultimate armor of incumbency ...has been pierced.

James FarleyWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 8:47 pm

Coastal Sage, You seem to have great insider knowledge on many issues. Now you also name drop the "FOUNDER" you have an inside connection to. Perhaps I'm the last naive one in this valley who does not know who you really are. Could you please develop the gonads to post with your real name so we know who we are getting the message from? While your message may have merit it is seriously discounted because you don't have the guts to put your real name to it.

ToddWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 10:32 pm

I'm pretty sure it's Jennifer Kilpatrick. She moved to Vegas in 2005 or 2006, last I heard. She's a lawyer by trade. Google her name. You'll see all about her.

nficWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 9:00 pm

I always thought Coastal Sage was someone who moved to Las Vegas a few years back.

James FarleyWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 9:21 pm

O-K Need For an Informed Citizenry. Thank you for that little tidbit. Do we perhaps communicate with our real names on Facebook? You clearly know who I am on this Blog or on Facebook because I have NEVER hid behind a pseudonym. When one hides behind a pseudonym they don't have to think as much about what they say, after all, it is not them saying it. Bottom line, if you cannot own your posts by putting your name on them you are a coward.

Don't AskThursday, December 5th, 2013 at 6:04 am

And do we verify there is a James Farley?

NFICThursday, December 5th, 2013 at 6:07 am

To each their own. Jim - I think about everything I post and we have alignment on many issues. That said, many people do make personal attacks based on ones opinions. I'm sure you've seen that firsthand too. On this board, I'm happy to use a psudo as do people like coastal sage. Just because you chose to use your real name, there really isn't any reason to criticize those who don't. But feel free to hammer me on my opinions. If it makes you feel better, I'll introduce myself next time were at a community event together.

MikeThursday, December 5th, 2013 at 9:21 am

Yeah, and she doesn't make much of a secret of who she is, either.

peachpit3846Thursday, December 5th, 2013 at 9:31 am

There was no intent to "attack" anyone in my response. I'm also not sure how the topic of pseudonyms came up. As for introducing yourself, I'll be glad to say hi.

MikeThursday, December 5th, 2013 at 11:28 am

"peachpit3846" nice touch ;)

IHeartSCVWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 11:07 am
I think Louis C.K. when I read an article like The Signal's on discussing death with children--his jokes about how there's not really an option to hold off on the death talk if you're growing up someplace like Afghanistan. But I guess since Paul Walker's the only person to have died in Santa Clarita this year, it's a timely article.
timothymyers02Wednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
On the chances for a temporary injunction against the City elections in 2014 Shenkman has an excellent chance. One of the standards for a temporary injunction is the likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing at trial and in light of the Palmdale decision that certainly seems more likely than it was. With an injunction in place I guess the incumbents would continue in office until the situation is resolved completely. The ultimate armor of incumbency!
Coastal SageWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Today I was on the phone with one of the actual FOUNDERS of the City of Santa Clarita. For those who don't remember, the Cityhood Formation Committee was a diverse group, including SCOPE's President the late Mike Kotch and Chamber of Commerce/Republican stalwart the late Art Donnelly. The group had meetings with the staff members of LAFCO, who met at length with the committee, guiding them in making critical choices about how to structure the city: Elected Mayor (like Simi Valley) or rotating councilman mayor, councilmanic districts or at-large Council elections. The FOUNDER told me that the Cityhood Formation Committee unanimously chose at-large Council districts, because they wanted all 5 Council members to be accountable to the voters, and that they particularly disliked the LA City system of councilmanic districts where the Councilman is "a king in his kingdom". The FOUNDER said they knew the reality which existed 25 years ago and which pretty much exists now: Arrange enough in campaign contributions and a Councilman in LA will support your development project, even if your actual constituents hate it. So let's focus on reality. The Democrat dominated California Legislature enacted the law which Parris/Shenkman now seek to enforce. As a "gift to contingency fee lawyers" the statute is explicit that the plaintiffs in this sort of lawsuit are entitled to collect attorneys fees and litigation costs (not the narrower category "court costs") if they prevail. That's the only conceivable reason 99% of the contingency fee lawyer community would bother litigating under this law. Notable, if they lose the case, they don't have to pay the city's or a school district's attorneys fees or costs. Messrs. Parris & Shenkman have not yet submitted their fee and cost bill for approval by the judge in the Palmdale case, but it will be a public record when they make their attorneys fees motion. The only appellate case which discusses attorneys fees under the California Voting Rights Act is the "Madera" case, and the contingency fee lawyers in that case asked for $1.7 Million in attorneys fees and litigation costs from a small school district. With respect to the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs issue, it's also important to point out that under the attorneys fees provision in the California Voting Rights Act, reference is slyly made to a case called Serrano v. Priest, which was one of the earliest cases where contingency fee lawyers were awarded attorneys fees in "civil rights" cases. What is insidious about that reference is that since the mid 1990's (or earlier) the California courts have embellished those attorneys fees collection rights by adopting a Federal law concept called "the lodestar". SImply stated, if the plaintiffs prevail the attorneys fees which can be sought are based on the lawyer's normal hourly rate, plus a multiplier or lodestar to compensate the lawyer for taking the case on contingency. Back in the early 2000's, the LA Superior Court would grant lodestar attorneys fees at 1.5 times the lawyer's normal hourly rate, meaning that if the lawyer's normal hourly rate was $400 per hour, he could bill at $600 per hour in that public interest case. At that same time period (early 2000's) the lodestar in the Bay Area was 2 or 2.5 times towards the lawyer's normal hourly rates. The other trick played by many law firms who take cases where lodestar attorneys fees are possible is assigning the most expensive lawyer in the firm to do the work (e.g. Parris rather than a young lawyer) plus billing lots of line items for unnecessary legal work, which lawyers typically cannot collect from their corporate or insurance company clients. However, in lodestar cases the typical trial judge does not bother to careful look at the bill and cross out "extra work or too much work". Sometimes if the trial judge likes the contingency fee lawyer, the trial judge "trusts" the lawyer not to run up unnecessary or outright fraudulent line items on the bill. I got to read the transcript of the hearing on the attorneys fees awarded the property owner in the Golden Valley Road condemnation case, and it was crystal clear that the judge...who had a bad reputation for 'ethics' to begin with...didn't even bother to critique and do cross-outs on the contingency fee lawyers' hourly billing. The risk of having to pay Parris & Shenkjman at an outlandish hourly lodestar rate, or inflated/bogus hours charged, is one of the principal reasons one Santa Clarita area school district decided to divide itself into districts rather than fighting in court. After speaking with the person who is one of the FOUNDERS my two throughts are: (1) A group of citizens, including both FOUNDERS and smart people like Allan Cameron (whose comment on Luke Money's article is worth reading) need to form their own group and intervene in the case, opposing the creation of districts. They all have a liberty interest which the Democrats in the California Legislature and Messrs. Parris & Shenkman seek to take away from them. While the California Supreme Court has already refused to consider one appeal from enforcement of this law (the "Modesto case") the FOUNDERS and bipartisan voters have standing to take their claims to the California Supreme Court if necessary. However, they've got to intervene quickly, before the case gets rolling. (2) Santa Claritans should consider writing and adopting a City Charter which would be written so that in enacting the charter, the charter ballot measure could discuss at length why Santa Claritans want at-large elections. If the charter was adopted by the voters, the city could then argue that the charter city's provisions for at-large voting are outside of the California Voting Rights Act's requirements. That sort of charter election would make litigation of this case far more time consuming and costly for Messrs. Parris and Shenkman. One key point to be made about the Palmdale case. The City of Palmdale was represented by Richards Watson Dreyfus & Gershon, a big "municipal law firm" whih has been around for at least 30 years. They are very competent, and they were defeated at trial by Messrs. Parris and Shenkman. Richards Watson and Santa Clarita's City Attorney law firm, Burke Williams & Sorensen, compete for the same clients and are rated as equals in the municipal lawyering business. So no one should assume that just because Santa Clarita uses "a big law firm" that the city is going to win. The city's leadership needs to look at what Richards Watson did in the Palmdale case, and figure out why they lost, as well as throwing in new issues and complications so that the California Voting Righs Act cases do not become the equivalent of "shooting fish in a barrel" for contingency fee lawyers.
MikeThursday, December 5th, 2013 at 9:21 am
"is one of the principal reasons one Santa Clarita area school district decided to divide itself into districts rather than fighting in court" What now?
jim solizWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Thank you for the thought. I personally rephrase the last sentence to read: "The ultimate armor of incumbency ...has been pierced.
James FarleyWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 8:47 pm
Coastal Sage, You seem to have great insider knowledge on many issues. Now you also name drop the "FOUNDER" you have an inside connection to. Perhaps I'm the last naive one in this valley who does not know who you really are. Could you please develop the gonads to post with your real name so we know who we are getting the message from? While your message may have merit it is seriously discounted because you don't have the guts to put your real name to it.
ToddWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 10:32 pm
I'm pretty sure it's Jennifer Kilpatrick. She moved to Vegas in 2005 or 2006, last I heard. She's a lawyer by trade. Google her name. You'll see all about her.
nficWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 9:00 pm
I always thought Coastal Sage was someone who moved to Las Vegas a few years back.
James FarleyWednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 9:21 pm
O-K Need For an Informed Citizenry. Thank you for that little tidbit. Do we perhaps communicate with our real names on Facebook? You clearly know who I am on this Blog or on Facebook because I have NEVER hid behind a pseudonym. When one hides behind a pseudonym they don't have to think as much about what they say, after all, it is not them saying it. Bottom line, if you cannot own your posts by putting your name on them you are a coward.
Don't AskThursday, December 5th, 2013 at 6:04 am
And do we verify there is a James Farley?
NFICThursday, December 5th, 2013 at 6:07 am
To each their own. Jim - I think about everything I post and we have alignment on many issues. That said, many people do make personal attacks based on ones opinions. I'm sure you've seen that firsthand too. On this board, I'm happy to use a psudo as do people like coastal sage. Just because you chose to use your real name, there really isn't any reason to criticize those who don't. But feel free to hammer me on my opinions. If it makes you feel better, I'll introduce myself next time were at a community event together.
MikeThursday, December 5th, 2013 at 9:21 am
Yeah, and she doesn't make much of a secret of who she is, either.
peachpit3846Thursday, December 5th, 2013 at 9:31 am
There was no intent to "attack" anyone in my response. I'm also not sure how the topic of pseudonyms came up. As for introducing yourself, I'll be glad to say hi.
MikeThursday, December 5th, 2013 at 11:28 am
"peachpit3846" nice touch ;)