Former city attorney refiles claim

Deirdre Newman

Former City Atty. Jerry Scheer has refiled a claim against the city,

tired of the six defendants dragging their feet on a settlement

agreement to his lawsuit.

The claim makes the same 29 complaints that were in the original

tort claim he filed in April, including violation of the Family and

Medical Leave Act, slander, libel and retaliation. Scheer filed his

lawsuit in September.

In October, city leaders announced they were settling the lawsuit

for $750,000.

Almost two months later, not all of the parties to the lawsuit

have signed off on it, said Dan Stormer, Scheer’s attorney.

The lawsuit named as defendants Senior Deputy City Atty. Marianne

Milligan -- who was known as Marianne Reger when the suit was filed

-- former councilwomen Linda Dixon and Karen Robinson, Mayor Gary

Monahan and Councilwoman Libby Cowan.

Refiling the tort claim, a first step toward filing a lawsuit,

rewinds the legal process to the beginning and starts the taxpayers’

tab running again, Stormer said.

“[The defendants] certainly are welcome to come talk to us again

about the concept of settlement,” Stormer said. “We’ll be much less

inclined to be reasonable than we were before. I’ve been doing this

for 30 years and have never seen a city act so irresponsibly.”

Melanie Poturica, who represents the city, said the defendants

intend to follow through with their commitment to settle. The delay

is because of the number of defendants that have to sign the

agreement, she said.

“They city is doing everything it can to get the matter settled

that [it] agreed [to],” Poturica said.

A secondary reason Scheer decided to lob another legal pitch at

the city is because he took offense at a statement Mayor Gary Monahan

made in the Daily Pilot on Dec. 18, Stormer said. Monahan said that

Scheer was hired without a recruitment process, then went on to say,

“And that’s a fatal flaw that we can’t have happen.”

Stormer said Monahan’s statement violated a clause in the

settlement agreement that prohibited any of the parties in the

lawsuit from making disparaging comments about each other.

“If the city will not only not meet its financial obligations, but

won’t meet its moral obligations and agreements it signed on to take

part in, how can you trust anything they’re going to do?” Stormer

said.

Monahan declined to comment.

The original tort claim charged that Scheer suffered losses in

excess of $5 million.

The lawsuit that followed was based on a series of events starting

in July 2001 when Milligan made a written complaint against Scheer

containing a number of accusations. Scheer was eventually cleared of

the allegations by an independent counsel and independent

investigator in April 2002.

But in September 2002, Scheer was placed on administrative leave

pending an investigation. The council decided the matter in a closed

session without Scheer present and did not let him ask to have

grievances against him discussed in an open session.

Also that month, the council initiated its own internal

investigation and financial audit of the Office of the City Attorney.

Cowan and Robinson were in charge of the investigation.

On Oct. 4, 2002, the council voted, again in closed session, to

reinstate Scheer. He returned to work on Oct. 7 against his doctor’s

orders because the city’s treatment had created severe emotional

distress, the lawsuit claims.

Scheer returned to work part-time but could not complete his

responsibilities because he was unable to log onto his computer,

according to the lawsuit. The computer division had also downloaded

everything from his computer while he was suspended, the lawsuit

stated.

Later in October, Scheer received a notice that he had to work

full-time or resign. Scheer chose to take sick leave on Oct. 21.

Stormer said he believed the reason so much time has elapsed

without finalization of the settlement agreement is because one of

the defendants is not amenable to it. He didn’t venture to guess

which one that might be.

Scheer signed off on the settlement out of loyalty to the city,

Stormer said.

“They had a wonderful committed employee who doesn’t want to be in

the situation where he is,” Stormer said. “He sacrifices to reach an

agreement because it was in everybody’s best interest, and then, they

slap him in the face by not signing it and violating the terms of

agreement they claim they were bound by.”

* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers Costa Mesa and may be reached at (949)

574-4221 or by e-mail at deirdre.newman@latimes.com.