Settlement vs Board Minutes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gryndor

New Member
Jurisdiction
California
CA

If say a fire department got entangled in a wrongful termination case, and wound up settling the case with terms like the former employee can never mention that the case settled or for how much…

What would be their Brown Act obligation to report into the minutes on this closed session item?

And what would they need to provide if an ROI were submitted?
 
Hi gryndor! I don't know the answer to your question but I wanted to welcome you to the board. Dare I hope this means your claim was successful?
 
gryndor said:
If say a fire department got entangled in a wrongful termination case, and wound up settling the case with terms like the former employee can never mention that the case settled or for how much
Click to expand...

I've been litigating cases as a lawyer for more than a quarter century and, as a paralegal, for another 10 years, and I've never seen or heard of such a provision in a settlement agreement.


gryndor said:
What would be their Brown Act obligation to report into the minutes on this closed session item?
Click to expand...

The antecedent to the pronoun "their" is unclear. However, I can tell you that the Brown Act does not preclude certain matters from being discussed in closed sessions. Discussions regarding negotiations for and approval of a (potentially) confidential settlement agreement would be one of those matter.


gryndor said:
And what would they need to provide if an ROI were submitted?
Click to expand...

You've hit the ambiguity trifecta here: (1) an ambiguous pronoun; (2) an unclear acronym; and (3) the passive voice.
 
zddoodah said:
I've been litigating cases as a lawyer for more than a quarter century and, as a paralegal, for another 10 years, and I've never seen or heard of such a provision in a settlement agreement.




The antecedent to the pronoun "their" is unclear. However, I can tell you that the Brown Act does not preclude certain matters from being discussed in closed sessions. Discussions regarding negotiations for and approval of a (potentially) confidential settlement agreement would be one of those matter.




You've hit the ambiguity trifecta here: (1) an ambiguous pronoun; (2) an unclear acronym; and (3) the passive voice.
Click to expand...
My apologies.

My first question was what is the fire district's board of directors responsibility to report this settlement as an action in the minutes of a regular meeting? It's been showing up under closed session for four years and suddenly it's gone.
Me vs. Them Litigation
No Action Taken
Return to Open Session
When my friend asked the front office, they responded, "the matter is closed."

The second question was about what must the fire district provide if a request for information regarding the case disposition and any settlements involved was submitted to the district? Could they avoid revealing the settlement, or just ignore the request?

Finally, In my settlement agreement, it says:

12. Confidentiality: Plaintiff agrees that Plaintiff will not voluntarily publicize, post, publish, disseminate, promote, or otherwise communicate to the general public, including through social media platforms, internet postings, blogs, podcasts, media interviews, or other public forums, the amount of the Settlement Payment, the specific terms of this Agreement, or the settlement of the Action; provided, however, that nothing herein prohibits Plaintiff from discussing this Agreement with Plaintiff's attorneys, tax advisors, or immediate family members, responding to a lawful subpoena, court order, governmental inquiry, or other legal process...
 
Last edited:
cbg said:
Hi gryndor! I don't know the answer to your question but I wanted to welcome you to the board. Dare I hope this means your claim was successful?
Click to expand...
I'm flattered you remembered me!

Yes it's done and done. The check's been cashed and the lawyers have been paid. My kid can read and write now (pregnant when this started) but it's over.
 
adjusterjack said:
Then what is the purpose of your questions?
Click to expand...
A corrupt fire department with no regard for public funds is hiding all their dirty laundry. And seem to be beholden to no one because nobody cares. *I* can't do anything, but if my friends get real annoying, can they pull this information out into the light??
 
zddoodah said:
That language imposes no obligation on the defendant.

If you have questions about your situation, I suggest you consult with the attorney who represented you in the case.
Click to expand...
I don't have questions about the language in the contract. I only posted that section because you said you'd never seen such language before. I posted it in case I had read it incorrectly.

I am only asking about the Board's obligation to report out the conclusion of our case in the minutes;

And the district's obligation should a request for public information be made.
 
gryndor said:
I am only asking about the Board's obligation to report out the conclusion of our case in the minutes;

And the district's obligation should a request for public information be made.
Click to expand...

No strangers on the internet, here or otherwise, are going to have any idea about the board's obligations for reporting or releasing information.

*I* can't do anything, but if my friends get real annoying, can they pull this information out into the light??
Click to expand...

When your "annoying" friends made a request for information, what were the results?
 
adjusterjack said:
No strangers on the internet, here or otherwise, are going to have any idea about the board's obligations for reporting or releasing information.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that California + Brown Act + Special District made things pretty cast in stone. Was hoping for an experienced answer, not the false confidence of AI.

adjusterjack said:
When your "annoying" friends made a request for information, what were the results?
Click to expand...

They were told the matter was closed. When followed up with, "oh great! Where was that recorded?" They were completely ignored.
 
gryndor said:
Finally, In my settlement agreement, it says:

12. Confidentiality: Plaintiff agrees that Plaintiff will not voluntarily publicize, post, publish, disseminate, promote, or otherwise communicate to the general public, including through social media platforms, internet postings, blogs, podcasts, media interviews, or other public forums, the amount of the Settlement Payment, the specific terms of this Agreement, or the settlement of the Action; provided, however, that nothing herein prohibits Plaintiff from discussing this Agreement with Plaintiff's attorneys, tax advisors, or immediate family members, responding to a lawful subpoena, court order, governmental inquiry, or other legal process...
Click to expand...
I don't believe that this language restricts the plaintiff from saying there was a settlement. It only seems to restrict the discussion of the specific terms of the settlement.
 
gryndor said:
I am only asking about the Board's obligation to report out the conclusion of our case in the minutes;

And the district's obligation should a request for public information be made.
Click to expand...

Depends on the terms of the settlement agreement. Specifically, it depends on whether the settlement agreement imposes any relevant obligations on the defendant(s).

Beyond that, you seem to be seeking a generalized discussion about a body of California law with which most California lawyers aren't going to be familiar.

If you're concerned that someone might make a request for some records relating to your case, you should speak with your attorney.


Zigner said:
I don't believe that this language restricts the plaintiff from saying there was a settlement. It only seems to restrict the discussion of the specific terms of the settlement.
Click to expand...

I agree but with a caveat. IMO, the operative language is as follows: "Plaintiff [may] not voluntarily . . . communicate to the general public" the following things: (1) "the amount of the Settlement Payment;" or (2) "the specific terms of this Agreement, or the settlement of the Action."

The comma between "Agreement" and "or" is poorly used and renders the language ambiguous. I believe the more likely interpretation is that it prohibits communication to the general public about "the specific terms of this Agreement or the settlement of the Action." However, it's possible to interpret it to mean that the plaintiff may not communicate about three things: (1) the amount; (2) the specific terms; and (3) the settlement.

I'm guessing that there was no actual negotiation about this language and that the public entity's attorney added the language and it was accepted without discussion. Regardless, I think it's pretty clear that the quoted language only prohibits "voluntar[y] . . . communicat[ion] to the general public."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ask a Question

Click to ask a question

Share this page

Back
Top