Resolution No. 1951
1
2
RESOLUTION NO. 1951
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON
3 EMPLOYING JOHN W. SHEN~ m AS SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE
CITY OF VERNON IN THAT CERTAIN MATTER ENTITLED THE PEOPLE
4 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.. ET AL VS. CITY OF LOS ANGELES"
CITY OF VERNON.. ET AL... BEING CASE NO. 661.. 591.
5
6 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
7 WHEREAS.. the City of Vernon has been served with a complaint
8 in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
9 Los Angeles.. entitled The People of the State of California~ et al... vs.
10 City of Los Angeles~ City of Vernon.. et al... being numbered in said court
11 No. 661~ 591; and
12 WHEREAS~ said complaint deals with the problem of sewage
13 disposal and is inter-related with the past and present actions involving the
14 City of Vernon in sewage matters; and
15 WHEREAS.. John W. Shenk" III.. is an attorney at law duly
16 licensed to practice before all of the courts of this state.. and has heretofore
17 been one of special counsel handling the sewage matters of this City; and
18 WHEREAS.. it is to the benefit and best interests of the City of
19 Vernon that special counsel be employed for the purpose of representing
20 the City of Vernon in said lawsuit;
21 NOW.. THEREFORE" BE IT RESOLVED:
22
23
24
25
0( 26
z
C ... II:
0: = ~ '" 27
<( ,. - 0
m>-z5~~
m~oUlu .;, 28
~:II1:~ ' .z
J:OIIIOll:C
,. ~>~lI:g
!! ai.....1D ~ .J 29
::: c( 00 1&1
oZ)-~iLz~
0'" - ij 0 z
Uluuc...::;30
0: .. " ..I
<( ~~~
u :: ~
:I 31
J:
32
SECTION 1:
That John W. Shenk.. III be.. and he is hereby
employed by the City of Vernon as Special Counsel for the purpose of
representing the City of Vernon in all matters in connection with and in all
phases of the aforementioned lawsuit.
SECTION 2: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon is hereby
directed to certify to the passage of this. resolution and thereupon and there-
after the same shall be in full force and effect.
ADOPTED and APP~OVED this 3rd day, of. n ." 1956.
^~
r of the City of Ve
ATTEST:
G. A~. ~DERSON.. CITY CLERK
,
By ,.\.VL,
De ty City Clerk
-1-
1
2
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SSe
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
4 I.. G. A. ANDERSON.. City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do
5 hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1951 was duly adopted
6 by the City Council of the City of Vernon.. and approved by the Mayor of
7 said City.. at a. regular meeting thereof held on July 3.. 1956.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 I'
I
23
24
25
~ 26
z
C ... II:
0: = ~ '" 27
<( ,. - 0
oo~ z 5 ~ ~
OOzOUlU" 28
~:II1:~'.z
J:o,.Oll:C
~.~>~lI:g
iL 00....... 0.0( .J 29
IL <C 0 U III
oZ)-)oiLz~
O!:!:ijoz
UlUUe... ::; 30
0: .. " ..I
<( ~~~
u ::~ 31
J:
32
G. A. ANDERSON.. CITY CLERK
By ~ty Clerk
-2-
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
.
t<.~~> . 1'1 sf
CITY COUNCIL
R. J. FURLONG, MAYOR
G. H.ANDERSON
C. H. MAILLIARD
J. M. POXON
L. C. MALBURG
TELEPHONES
CITY CLERK
POLICE DEPT. - .
FIRE DEPT.
ENGINEERING DEPT.
HEALTH DEPT. .. ..
LUDLOW 5.8878
LUDLOW 7.5287
LUDLOW 8-2522
LOGAN 8.1 666
LUDLOW 7.7376
CITY HALL
4305 SANTA FE AVENUE
VER~ON 58, CALIFORNIA
.1,. \) \~
t\,\ V"
November 13.. 1956
F. A. Ziemer.. Deputy City Clerk
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon 58.. California
OFFICERS
G. A. ANDERSON, CITY CLERK
v. R. POXON, CITY TREASURER
CARSON B. HUBBARD, CITY ATTORNEY
H. A. BARNETT, CONSULTING ENGINEER
DR. C. E. NEMETHI, HEALTH OFFICER
J. S, COLTON, BUILDING ENGINEER
LESTER C. HUSTED. FIRE CHIEF
R. H, BOCKHACKER, POLICE CHIEF
JOHN B. MOORE, ADMINiSTRATIVE ASSISTANT
TO THE CITY COUNCIL
HASKINS & SELLS. AUDITORS
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Carson B. Hubbard
City Attorney
6308 Pacific Blvd
Huntington Park
In re: People vs. Los Angeles~ et al
Superior Court Case No. 661 591
Dear Mr. Ziemer:
Enclosed is Demand of John W. Shenk.. III..
for services rendered in the above entitled action..
together with copy of his letter of transmittal to me.
I believe the charge to be reasonable.. and
ask that you present this voucher to the City Council
f or its action.
Yours very truly.
CARSON B. HUBBARD
By
MAF/a
Enc.
.." ......
Carson B. Hubbard
City AttorneY3 City of Vernon
6308 Pacific Boulevard
Huntington Park~ California
LAW OFFICE
JOHN W. SHENK, III
650 South Spring Street"
Los Angeles 14" California
TRinity 2661
November 9.. 1956
Re:PeoPle vs. Los Angeles" etal "
L. A. SuperiQr Court !No.'661'591
Dear Jud&,e:
, , ~' "'.C
.. '
. .' _ _ , _ ." ~-i
I am taking the liberty of enclosing herewith my demand:
upon the City of Vernon for services rendered intl1e abQv~,~e~ed';ACtiQn.
You will recall that I was employed as Special'COim.sel hy;,!u.~~P~tY"9~i
Vernon pursuant to ReS,olution No. 1951, for the purp9se of rE'~PI1esenttng
theCity:in this action. . " ,
" " The action.wascommenced last June followingt.liEi{aitllre
of the City ofManhatt~n Beach and the City of HermosaBeachloamend
their complaint in a prior action. " Since last 'June lhayeconductedcoIl.~.
siderable investigation regarding the Iawsuitj together with. cnl1i'.erences
withcounselrepresenting other defendants and have atten<iedtl,le argu-,
menta on demurrers and the motions for temporary injutl<itions'iR:.
Department 20 of theSup:erior Court. . .
There was originally filed in this parlicula.:ractiona com~
plaint consisting of over fifty pages which required analyzing.. and there
was subsequently filed by the People of the State of. California an amended , .
compla.int con~isting of over seventy pagesl which included two newcause$
of action.. . Hearing wa.s held on the demurrer and motion onth,e'secon,d
amended complaint which I attended" although not :is complet~ly asI did
on the first complaint for the reason that. I felt that only the new arguments
needed to be audited for the protection of.the City of Vernqn.
In addition to the above.. 1 have kept in' close contact witn.'
both counsel for th~plaintiffs in the action.. who believe tha.t weare. in
sympathy with the hope for results by the plaintiffs.. and wit lithe. counsel
for the City of Los Angeles for the purpose of obtaining as much informa;,;.
tion as Icould. Inaddition.to this, I believe that my presence 'before Jud.g~
Vickers has created a somewhat more amicable feeling towa.rdthe C~tyof
Vernon. as I amuow addressed by my firstname and have been ]nVit~dtos~t
at the counsel table along with other counsel.. even though Iwa.s ca,refulto .
not become a counsel of record.' .
1.
.....
.... '.....
~IA
-..
Carson B. Hubbard'
. Page 2.
I therefore believe that my services hay~p~~n;Yalua1;lle
in t.lie above regards and.. in view of the fa:ctl.tliat my. t~.~,;s.l1e~&~hbw
thatI have spent in excess of fifty-two hours on this matter.. I trust'
that youfeelthat the stat.ement is reasonable.
I would be pleased to have you present this demand to the
City,Cotmcil as soon as convenient if you feel that it is in order.'
With warm personal regards.. I am~
Yours sincerely..
/ s I John W. Shenk.. In
JOHN W. SHENK, III
,JWS :lif
Ene.
...
~ .. ";:
JOHN W. SHENK, III
A'n'OaNBY AT LAW'
6~O SOUTH SPRING STREET
LOS ANGELES 14
June 28, 1958
Carson B. Hubbard
City Attorney, City of Vernon
6308 Pacific Boulevard
Huntington Park, California
My dear Judge:
I am taking the liberty of forwarding to you herewith my
Demand on the City of Vernon for the following matters.
You wUl recall that following the decision of the ~upreme
Court tn the declaratory relief action, City of Vernon V5. City of Los
Angeles, the City of Los Angeles fUed a memorandum of costs and dis-
bursements on appeal. After checking with your office I filed a motion
to tax costs alleging that the item of $140.00 claimed by LOB Angeles for
a copy of the transcript on appeal was an improper charge. I was success-
fullnthls contention and succeeded in having thiB amount stricken from the
memorandum of costs.
With regard to the U. S. vs. Certain Parcels of Land case,
which we have commonly referred to a8 the Bandini Boulevard case, I
have 8pent in excess of ftve hours on incidental matters since the demand
filed by Mr. Young wu paid. Thi.8 time was spent in negotiating with the
Santa Fe and with the attorney for the U. S. Lands Division in cleaning up
the deeds aDd in arranging with the Santa Fe with regard to the proper
method of handling the change in the easements to the City of Vernon, which
changes were brought about after the 8igning of the stipulation for judgment.
The cas. of the City of Manhattafl Beach, et al vs. the City
of Los Anieles, City of Vernon, et al has come to an abrupt conclusion by
reuon of the flUng of a dlam1Bsal by the plaintiffs in that action.
Because of the peculiar nature of this case and the fact that
it 1& indelibly connected with other problems of sewage disposal in the City
of Vernon. I felt that it was very necessary that each and every facet of the
cue be followed with particularity. I therefore attended all of the hearings
before Judge Vickers wherein the law of the case was argued. I also spent
a great deal of time in conference with other counsel and in research and
analys iso! the complaint Ciled against us.
1.
COpy
...
Carson B. Hubbard
Pace 2.
11I7 time recorda sbow that 1 bave expended in excess of
forty-1m ho\U"8 on thla particular matter and 1 am therefore submitttnC
a at&t.ment for these s.ntees alonl with the hereinabove mentioned itema.
1 appreciate your preseutiDl a resolution for my employ-
meat 1D the new ca.e fUed by the People of the state of California aplut
Loa AllIel.s and VernOll. aDd assure you that 1 will do my utmo8t to protect
th. IAtere.ts of the City of Vernon.
U you feel that the demand 18 correct and that the cbarles
therein are reuonable, 1 would appreciate your approving the claim and
presenting it to the City Council for approval.
1 aU) enc losing a copy of this letter with the demand so that
you may transmit it to the City Council with the demand should you consider
it to be advisable.
Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this matter,
and with bilh personal regards, 1 am,
Yours sincerely,
JOHN W. SHENK, ill
JW S:rf
Ene.
..