Resolution No. 7724f
1 RESOLUTION NO. 7724
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
3 VERNON APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
4 LETTER AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF VERNON
AND THE LAW FIRM OF RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP TO CONTEST
5 THE ACTIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
6
7 WHEREAS, on May 2, 2000, the City Council of the City of
8 Vernon adopted Resolution No. 7531 which approved a letter agreement
9 with the law firm of Rutan & Tucker, the attorneys chosen to represent
10 the various cities in the action entitled Cities of Bellflower,
11 Burbank, Cerritos, et al. v. California Regional Water Quality Control
12 Board following the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's
13 (the "Regional Board") approval of the Standard Urban Storm Water
14 Mitigation Plans; and
15 WHEREAS, Rutan & Tucker are representing a number of cities
16 in Los Angeles County that have formed an informal ad hoc coalition
17 known as the Coalition for Practical_ Regulation (the "Coalition") to
18 challenge actions taken by the Regional Board in connection with
19 recent storm water runoff orders, including the proposed Municipal
20 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and
21 regulations issued by the Regional Board, in particular, a recent
22 Regional Board action on January 25, 2001, in connection with the
23 issuance of trash total maximum daily loads for the Los Angeles River
24 Watershed; and
25 WHEREAS, in order to participate in the challenges, the City
26 of Vernon is being asked to enter into a letter agreement with the law
27 firm of Rutan & Tucker, the attorneys chosen to represent the Coalition
28 in an action entitled City of Signal Hill, et al. v. Los Angeles
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
WHEREAS, the law firm of Rutan & Tucker is requesting that
each City be responsible for paying its share of the invoices of the
total billings, on a per capita basis, based on the number of cities
identified as Petitioners at the time of the invoice and that each City
Petitioner may be requested to pay a retainer amount for legal and
other expenses to be incurred by the City of Signal Hill on behalf of
the Coalition; and
WHEREAS, the City of Vernon believes that such a fee
arrangement is reasonable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
finds and determines that the recitals contained hereinabove are true
and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
approves the Letter Agreement with Rutan & Tucker, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said Letter
Agreement for, and on behalf of, the City of Vernon.
SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
directs the City Clerk, or his designee, to send one fully executed
Letter Agreement to:
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Attn: Richard Montevideo
P.O. Box 1950
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950
- 2 -
* Y
1 Y
1 SECTION 5: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall
2 certify to the passage of this resolution, and thereupon and
3 thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2001.
5
6 �-
7 LEONIS C. MAL URG, Mayor
8 ATTEST:
9
10
11 BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 -
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No.
7724, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon at a
regular meeting of the City Council duly held on Wednesday, March 7,
2001, and thereafter was duly signed by the Mayor of the City of
Vernon.
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk
- 4
EXHIBIT
AV
MAR-06-2001 TUE 10:46 AM EDUARDO OLIVO
Mar-00-'01 10:17am From-RUTAN
FAX NO. 1 Pr 03
?14-546-9035 T-195 P,03/01 F-470
pW WVAN 644 IHo I —WV IvC.h,tP I—I IqW,
.,. MUTAN �� I.,KA%n0v+y' ehn DIC�r..,,. [irRfr we0f LT YKCw ry.wnOGl wT-Ih•...w.
r..u. r..rOrr{-... .Mtn•r., i trplcw-. Yo,IrRa I,rr{N taLl+n r71wI ►.Cr»IIC G auLa
R.GnhhO w. t..R+rvrr �h..Y o .On.• wOwr r ro..r.r w.lUa tiwhLlO,. RAv w .•.wear
Leerwah Itw.gL frl.0 w«r.3ntlK ..rrlt•• kp.M..t tP[L R.r'.n �h'r,GvtA
IUnnn n.+r.r�IT /w :fFw{M. w1CwO.7 1 /1VYh IMLIL rr.a Cwrnn7l 91 r�U(DKFR
MIGn�IY W N1 ., TnO.w C �rOcrw.cY..w .�r�i n .s.N[ CUN/ LOWnia PeRWY Rnh�iR 1 wnvr,An
FU[Rw Dwn. it w H NTh01h 1 !u 1'LwhMSlih Itrl•.1 T nlrC-.w[ IUnhT RR•DYhT
6 I,.L000.. I .n rF r. - crt.a..tt I•Mhq O+L�nf Ww. • Cdt�11 Nnn Y I .PI[•1 � n C �r'�""n
f irCtAf IY MVCIt IMnanr .hr.v.w [wxo.o C•IRr rww.iwr"NJ wPAw..n Yhrr YnF••
jWF..rC.nhrTil MY 4Sflh F.ThGUrC,, .h.lr1l. LTLR par...uwttu.
aa•.,...a r L..1 ..C.-II r i,m ticw•LR • n0 rLLL hAhW ka.19tPi ".,Tch "III
A T T O ft N 0 Y S A T L A W j �y I U I4 11 Inan.l l cn.w. Iww.r . �rrrF• ..l..r l.nt-•P P. -b'a e-voc a••
PgMrc .h..vn I.wh[1 kWlf* p.1Y10n IwcntaM .•,4.w. vwwh lw� 7.wn .icvr.n
Y."Ar. InL.4%F- rs.arwl FAA— A F•TFLtL....41 MM w nhNIL10•t.IR Iah r nKh4M,
p.viaC ..mrR'-..-I.r...w11r...vn tPwlw.L nww.allLc Ianna IFnroo O.Y.
A?0%1c}NtR1t1I?�NCWDINQVK51f5S10—LCORPORATIVNS P-.0o..oL01w w.slr,r4�T MVrJNFYRF rYrn.a,en„ ervAl.hC,uLtar
b11 MvTGN hOuLaVARO, rC1uRTNN7rI fLOOR ..117 U M hvrh nl.hMUC kCnTLVIara IorAht ..-C..r Pm.* n.nCmwb
�nwG pv».. •L+-, ..L-Ln I_IYR ItRnICC 4LCt• TLOS4#r-U9 n14 orca..—
COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 9;021P-} 031 ,TL%1 n 0A•...... FRw..T w L.n(1,. is Omw Dwf..rpL hO.rPY A �'¢ ,0Hµ0 0 ►iIII—. it,
DIRPCT ALL tAAfLTV' pdSI OFFiCO UOK 1959, ar n.rO.COTT- &t C, fmcwr.0.. a.w, c nOMNNA nyw w hLwrCw•, 0,.n01 rr.rLrw. m
t ul!FOWiIt Yn, T••.o. uCkw WhK-AW 14LKW K.4
COGJAMf5A. CI%OVQKNIA52o[a-195P P.rm, ••I.wae o•v0, eaeewrL Ltnr w CwAOt or.LlnL WMA »,. u..0
nwRt.w • rOCIrT� ww«7 vw�e wCitn n•Rw P..P•,..w. I,,vl.A. HOW ;Q mk.,T.on
icLlPnQtrE%{a•-04i-510o PApIMiLeT1+,a�9nss NNWMM.1•hifcN,Iw. h7wh.nh,LLIL Mvintrco, CP•1P•a.Vk1%'ahr,III
INTERNET ADORL$ --- My 11 COM w4" w .,. . Tinlw h 94» 00uGw, I htl.h.I.t7ON &LItr D%m
Dam DmL- (714) 602-4642
E.maTl rmonwvtdeo(ruTAri-com
March S, 2001
Re: Cijx Qf Simal ill et . v a 'anal 1V ter i trol Board
Dear City Rcpresesitative-
Through the infbn al ad hoc Coalition Down as the Coalition for Practical Regulation,
we ]lave been asked to represent a n=bcr of cities in the CaWy, to challenge action t*cn by
the I.os Angeles Regional Wafer Quality Control Board ("Regional Board") in connection with
Tecent storm water runoff orders and regulations issued by the Regional Board- In psaicular, we
have been asked to pursue litigation and tape other legal action to challenge recent Regional
Board action ore January 25, 2001, in connection with the issuance of trash total maximum daily
loads for the Jos Angeles River Watershed (hereafter collectively "Petirion"). With this rctaiper
letter, the City of Vernon, a municipal corporation (''City,,) is retail g the law firm of Rutan &
Tucker to challenge actions of the Regional Board andlor its Executive Officer, and to take all
such other action as is necessary and directed by the Cities' representatives with the Coalition for
Pracdcal Regulation, in connection with the TMDLs in issue. and in =Mecuon with related
issues concerning storm wate'' runoff, including tic upcoming Proposed Mttni6fl4l National
Pollutant 1)ischarge EliMination System ("NPDES") permit -
The purpose of this letter is to confirm the City's retention of, Rutan & Tacker in
connection with these [natters. This retainer letter thercfare sets forth the tens upon which the
City has retained Ratan & Tucker and also provides its conment and appropriate Conflict waivers
for any potential conflicts that may be created by R.utau & Tucker's join; representation of the
Cities and/or its representation of other clients on unrelated [matters.
Our fees are generally based an the hourly design rates set by the firm, subject to periodic
review and Ghatnce, for the various attorneys involved in handling the matter. The rates vary
depetuling upon the level of seniority, expertise and experience of the individuals involved. At
present, my hourly design rare for public entity clients is $260 an hour; however, because we are
in part representing existing public entity c]iemts, our hourly rate for purposes of this matter will
be a composite rate of $195 per hoar for all attorney time, Further, whenever passible, legal
n710MI21-oa67
loon 01 14y",
MAR-06-2001 TUE 10:46 AM EDUARDO OLIVO FAX NO. 1 P. 04
filar-*:o1 10Xam From-RUTAN T14-546-9035 T-195 P.04108 F-410
OCKERI
wTaX rt A SAW
City Rcprawntadve
March S, 2001
Page 2
intcros, law clerks, legal assistants and other professionals with a lower billing rate will be
utilized, consistent with the proper representation of the irltGrt$ts of our clients in coatiectiatl
with this matter and without sacrificing proficiency, in addition to fees, our clients are also
billed for all necessary costs incurred in connection with the representation, such as docuinMt
copying coati, messenger service fear, tclecopying fees, long distance telephone costs, mileage,
computer assisted research, filing fees, reporter fees, administrative record fees, and other related
litigation and petition costs and out-of-pocket expenses.
We render our statements on a monrhly basis and they are payable within 30 days from
the date of the invoice. The invoices will describe the worlt performed during the billing period
and the idetltity of the iiAviduals providing services, as wr-ll ps a break dowel ofbillcd costs. IT
1s customary in matters of dus nature ih11 we receive a rcm ncr as an advance against fees and
costs prior to commencing work on the matte. However, given the prior rcpres=% ioq of Cities
who were a pact of the Coalition for Practical Regulation in connection with a challenge to
Reglptial Board action on the Los Angeles County SUSMP, and given our existing relationship
with other member Cities on various other matters, no retainer amount is being required.
However, the City of Signal Hill, on behalf of the Coalition for Practical Regulation, may be
requesting a retainer amount for legal and other expenses to be incurred by the Coalition.
Each City shall be responsible for its pro rota portion of the foes and COSTS per capita, i,e.,
each City is responsible for paying its share of the invoices of the total billings, on a per capita
basis, based on the number of Cities idcnti5Cd as Petitioners at the time of the invoice. if the
City determines to drop -out of the Coalition, the City shall be responsible for the costs and fees
incurred up to the time it withdraws from the proceedings, including the costs and fees 10
efi'eetpatk the withdrawal. Monthly invoices showing the costs and fees incurred will be sent to
the City of Signal Bill, and any portion of the retainer amount remaining, upon the conclusion of
this matter, if any, will be resumed to the City within 30 days ihrrcaitcr, by Signal Hill. If Cities
am added to the Coalition after the Petitions in issue arc filed, the pro rata allocation of the City
will be adjusted downward to account for such additional parties.
In accordance with the requirements of California Business and Professions Code section
6148, 1 wanted to advise you that Rutan & Tucker inauntains errors and ornissi=s insurance
coverage applicable to the services to be rendered as contemplated by this Agreement -
As you know, Rutan & Tucker is eurretltlY acting as legal counsel to a number of other
cities and school districts in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside couuties, as well as a large
number of other private clients. Rutan & Tucker's representation of such public and private
entities it► such other matters is urirclated to its represeumdon of the City in this mailer. Rutan &
Tucker therofare reserves the right to continue to represent such parties in these umelawd matters
and any other parties in the future which may be adverse to the City, but which are unrelated to
our reprmentation of the City in connection with the subject proceeding. Yo1i1 signature below
227W1s1-W
13497001 101l05/01
MAR-06-2001 TUE 10:47 AM EDUARDO OLIVO FAX NO. 1 P. 05
Uar-08-01 10;382m From-RUTAN
i14-54s-goa5 T-195 P.05/01 F-4?0
4TOCKERs
. TOT • f 1 A T � n 1.
City Representative
Mam ib $, 2001
page 3
will eonf= this understanding and your waiver on behalf of the City of any such potential
conflicts.
In representing the City petitioners in these proceedings, it is our belief that the interests
of all petitioners, both f Aancially and legally, will be consistent and that we will be able to
proceed with a common strategy. Yet, there is always a potential for a conflict of interest to arise
after additional facts involving the proceedings become known and/or as a result of a divergence
in iatcremt in the fugue because of positions that have or may be taken by the Respondents. One
of the purposes of this retainor agreement is to provide fall disclosure of the scope of our
represewation and to minimize any such potential conflicts.
Califotuia Rule of Professional Conduct section 3-310 provides in part that:
Rule 3-310. Avoiding The Representation Of Adverse
Interests.
* . K
(C) A member shall not, without the informed written
cansem of each client:
(1) Accept representation of more than one client in
a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict; ar
(2) Accept or continue representation of more than
one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients actually
conflict; or
(3) Represent a client in a matter attd at the same
time in a separate matter accept as a diet a person or entity whose
interest in the first matter is adverse to the client in the fast matter.
(D) A member who represents two or more clients shall
not enter into ate aggregate settlement of the claims of Or agonise
the clients without the informed written consent of each client.
In accordance with Rule 3-310, please be advised that there is a potential for the interests
of the petitioners to become adverse in the future, As an example, a potential conflict could arise
if one or mare of the Cities determines to proceed with a storm water capture program through
settlement or litigation, that is beyond what other_ cities believe is reasonable under the
circumstances. although at tlus time there is no indication that sttch a conflict exists, and the
interests of the Cities are not in anyway presently adverse, such a potential for adverse interests
15967mol 4310!M
MAR-06-2001 TUE 10:47 AM EDUARDO OLIVO FAX NO, 1 P. 06
Var-06-01 10:38n Fror-RUTAN 714-546-0035 T-195 P.00/08 F-4i0
��IUTAN
&TT UCKER'
wf10MPi�. +r .ww
City Representative
March 5, 2001
Page 4
exists, and could cause a different senlMent or prosecution strategy in pursing the Petition. If a
conflict does occar, the City agrees that Rutan & Tucker may continue with its representation of
the City of Signal Hill and those Cities that are taking positions consistent with the City of Signal
Hill, with the conflicted City then being permitted to substitute in new counsel, if it so desires.
Your signature and acceptance of ibis retainer agreement below will constitute the City's
approval of this provision on conflicts of interest and will also permit Rutan & Tucker to
continue to represent other private and public Clients who are or may be adverse to the City
presently and in the flu=. both in litigation and in non -litigation matters, but unrelated to the
iismT proceedings, as well as to continue to represent the other City Petitioners in connection
with the matters referenced herein. Of course, in the event an unwaivable conflict occurs, rind
we can no longer continue to represent the City's Interests, any waoailts remaining in the retsiuer
collected by Sigual bill that are owed to the City in accordance with the above -referenced
fornnala, would be returned to the City, along with copies of all research requested and other
legal analysis prepared in The course of our representation of your interests in connection with
The Petition.
Please recognize that althomgh there is a potential for adverse interests in the future, we
believe at this time that collective action on the part of each of the respective Petitioners is to
their mutual advantage. it is our belief That there i5 4 strong common interost among each of the
Petitioners involved in Tho strlajcct Petition, which permits and allows for a coordinated strategy
in prosecuting the Petition. ID addition, to the extent any consultants andlor expert witnesses will
be necessary to pursue these matters, at this Timc, yve believe that a coordinated mamgy among
experts and consultants will be cost effective_
We appreciate the oppormnity to serve as your attorneys and anticipate a productive m d
humor0ous relationship. if, however, you become concerned for any reason with the services
we have or are perfomdug, or the fceS That have been assessed To the City, we encourage you To
britng this matter to our attention immediately- If we perceive a problem with the representation,
we will Similarly bring it to your attention.
Most such problems should be rectified by communication and discussion. However, a
dispute could arise between Rutan & Tucker and the City which cannot be resolved by
negotiation. We believe that such attorney/cheat disputes are most satisfactorily resolved
through bindixia arbitration rather 4" by litigation in covert.
Arbitration, as you know, is a process by which both parties to a dispute agree to submit
the matter to a retied judge or other arbitrator who has expertiso in the area and to abide by ibc
arbitrator's decision, izuttad•of litigating in court. in arbitration, there is no right to a trial by jury
and The arbitrator's lgal and factual detetmiva ions ere generally not subject to appellate review.
Arbitration rules of evidence uW procedure are often less forntal and rigid than in a court trial,
2z705121-0o69
ISMOU1 JOSIOS101
MAR-06-2001 TUE 10:47 AM EDUARDO OLIVO
gar-;G 1 M-Slam Fraa-RUTAN
FAX NO. 1
714-540-9035 NeS PAT/OB F-470
P. 07
RUTAN
&TOCKERS
� 1 , V . , . . , . -
City Representative
March S, 2001
page 5
Arbitration usually results in a decision much more quickly than pracecdings in court, and the
,attorneys, fees and other costs incurred by both sides are usually substantially less.
Both the United states and California Supreme Courts have endorsed arbitration as an
accepted and favored method of resolving disputes, because it is economical and expeditious.
Arbitration is also less acrimonious and more confidential than traQitional liti$atioln and is,
therefore, particularly suited to resolution of disputes between attorueys and their clients.
Your agreement to arbirnte disputes is not a condition of auT agreeing to represent the
City, and if you do not wish to agree to arbittate, you should advise xne before signing the caPY
of this letter, so we can delete this secti4a of the aFmcmenti. The City is free to discuss the
advisability of arbitration with us or your independent counsel or any of yotir other advisors and
to ask any questions which it may have.
By signing this letter, the City agrees that any disputes arising out of or relating to this
agreement, our relationship, or the services performed (including but not limited to disputes
regarding anoraeys' fees or costs and claims of negligence, breach of contract or fiduciary duty,
fraud or any claim based upon a statute), shall be resolved by submission to binding arbitr UOA
in Los Angeles County, California, before a retired judge or justice or other agreed upon
arbitrator. If we are finable to agree upon an arbitrator, each parry will name One arbitrator and
the two named persons will select a neutral arbitrator, who will act as the sole arbitrator.
If you wish Rutan & Tucl= to represent the City in connection with this matter, we are
requesting that you provide informed written consent by signing and returning this letter TO us as
soon as possible, We encourage you to seek independent ceuttsel if you so desire regarding the
itnpbrta ce of this consent, and we emphasize that you remaila completely free to speak tQ
iudep=dent cognscl at any time, even if you decide to sign this Retainer Agreement and provide
the consent requested herein.
I would appreciate it if you would execute and return the enclosed copy of this letter,
indicating the City's agreement with the above and authorizing us to act accordingly.
117"4121.0067
15967001 aavosm
MAR-06-2001 TUE 10:48 AM EDUARDO OLIVO
• , I
khr-06-01 10:39am FranrRUTAN
FAX NO. 1
714-546-9085
r-195 P.09/08 F-4T0
P. 08
&TUC KE I
- 1. o DNA 1 f • 7 4- W
City Representative
Mareh 5, 2001
Page 6
If you have any questions or comments with respect to any of the maticrs set faith in this
letter, please do noT hesitate to Cali me. X look forward to working with you cad the City and to a
successful representation of your interests. Thank you again for considering Ruratt & 'lU40r.
Sincerely,
p,UTAN & TUCKER, LLP
g—r` 1)//I "�q-) ; Y;
Richard MoTitevidca
Rm:cic
i have read and understood the conteuts of this letter and consent to Rum & Tucker
representing the City on the matters and terms set forth above.
Dared: March 2001
ATTEM
Bruce V. Malkenharm. City Clerk
Approved As To Form,
Eduardo Olivo, City Attomey
227+045121.067
Is"W.01 OPASA1
City of Vernon, a municipal corporation
By; �-
LFONTS C. MA.LBupm, MAYOR
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
LEONIS C. MALBURG
Mayor
THOMAS A. YBARRA
Mayor Pro-Tem
WM. 'BILL" DAVIS
Councilman
H. "LARRY" GONZALES
Councilman
W. MICHAEL MCCORMICK
Councilman
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST
City Administrator / City Clerk
FAX (323) 581-7924
CITY HALL
4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058
TELEPHONE (323) 583-8811
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Attn: Richard Montevideo
P.O. Box 1950
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950
Re: Letter of Agreement
Dear Mr. Montevideo:
EDUARDO OLIVO
City Attorney
FAX: (562) 927-8722
KEVIN WILSON
Director of Community Services & Water
FAX: (323) 588-2761
April 11, 2001
KENNETH J. DeDARIO
Director of Municipal Utilities
FAX: (323) 583--1983
STEVEN E. PARKER
Fire Chief
FAX: (323) 581-1385
BRUCE W. OLSON
Police Chief
FAX: (323) 583-5236
Transmitted herewith is an original copy of a fully executed Letter of
Agreement by and between the City of Vernon and Rutan & Tucker, LLP
approved by the Vernon City Council at their meeting held March 7, 2001.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Eduardo
Olivo at 323/583-8811 ext. 310.
Very ruly yours,
Wccs
aGloria J.
Chief Deputy City Clerk
BVM:ng
CC: Eduardo Olivo
Resolution No. 7724
Agreement File No. 01-021
TAN
DAMES R. MOORE•
A.W. RUTAN (I880-1972) JAMES B. TUCKER,
WILLIAM J. CAPLAN JEFFREY WERTHEIMER
SR. II SBI
TREG A.. JUL JULAN DER
NATASHA L. PAVIA
dxi g
PAUL FREDERIC MARX
MICHAEL T. HORNAK
ROBERT O. OWEN
TODD O. LITFIN
RICHARD D. ARKO
RICHARD A. CURNUTT
PHILIP D. KOHN
ADAM N. VOLKERT
KARA S. CARLSON
MARK M. MALOV.OS
LEONARDA . HAMPEL
70EL D. KUPERBERG
JEFFREY A. GOLDFARB
ERIC L. DUNN
NIKKI NGUYEN
A
[ N
"+I KER
C
JOHN B. HURLBUT, JR.
MICHAEL W. IMMELL
MI LFORD W. DAHL, JR.
STEVEN A. NICHOLS
THOMAS G. BROCKINGTON
WILLIAM W. WYNDERL.
F- KEVIN BRAZIL
LAYNE H. MELZER
SKI HARRISON
FRED GALANTE
CRUSTY LOMENZO. PARKER
JEFFREY T. MELCHING
JEFF C. RISHER
I NNIFER S. ANDERSON
JOHN T. BRADLEY
_I
THEODORE I. WALLACE, JR.•
EVRIDIKI IVICKII DALLAS
LARRY A. CERUTTI
SEAN P. FARRELL
ALISON L. ROSSMAN
�v/
GILBERT N. KRUGER
RAN DALL M_ BABBUSH
CAROL D. CARTY
MARLENE POSE JURGENSEN
BILL H_ IHRKE
JOSEPH D. CARRUTH
MARY M. GREEN
PATRICK D. McCALLA
APRIL LEE WALTER
ALLISON LEMOINE-BUI
RICHARD P. SIMS
MICHAEL F. SITZER
RICHARD K. HOWELL
KAREN ELIZABETH WALTER
KAREN L. MARTINEZ
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
JAMES B. O'NEAL
THOMAS J CRANE
JAMES S. WEISZ•
NATALIE SIBBALD DUNDAS
CHYI G. CHEN
ROBERT C. BRAUN
MARK B. FRAZIER
DAVID H. HOCHNER
ALISON M. BARBAROSH
T. LAN NGUYEN
THOMAS S. SALINGER•
PENELOPE PARMES
A. PATRICK MUNOZ
JOHN W. HAMILTON, JR.
LISA V. NICHOLAS
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
DAVID C. LARSEN'
M. KATHERINE JENSON
S. DANIEL HARBOTTLE
JOHN A. RAMIREZ
JENNIFER L. DAVY
611 ANTON BOULEVARD, FOURTEENTH FLOOR
CLIFFORD E. FRIEDEN
MICHAEL D. RUBIN
DUKE F. WAHLQUIST
RICHARD G. MONTEVIDEO
PAUL J. SIEVERS
JOSEPH I.. MAGA, III
LYNN LOSCHIN
PHILIP J. BLANCHARD
GEORGE A. GALLEGOS
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1931
IRA G. RIVIN'
LORI SARNER SMITH
KRAIG C. KILGER
TERENCE J. GALLAGHER
OF COUNSEL:
JEFFREY M. ODERMAN'
ERNEST W. KLATTE, III
DEBRA DUNN STEEL.
ROBERT E. KING
EDWARD D. SYBESMA, JR.-
DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: POST OFFICE BOX 1950
STAN WOLCOTT-
KIM D-THOMPSON
DAWN C. HONEYWELL
DEJA M. HEMINGWAY
DAVID J. GARIBALDI, III
ROBERT S. BOWER
JAYNE TAYLOR RACER
DAN SLATER
JULIE W. RUSS
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1950
DAVID J. ALESHIRE
DAVID B. COSGROVE
KENT M. CLAYTON
DENISE L. MESTER
'A PROFESSIONAL
TELEPHONE 714-641 -5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035
MARCIA A. ED SYTH
HANS VAN LIGTEN
MARK BUDENSIEK
W. ANDREW MOORE
CORPORATION
INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com -
WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA
JAMES L. MORRIS
STEPHEN A. ELLIS
MATTHEW K. ROSS
STEVEN 1. GOON
DOUGLAS J. DENNINGTON
CHARLES A. DAVENPORT, Ill
JULIE L. DREW
Direct Dial: (714) 662-4642
E-mail: rmontevideo@rutan.com
March 5, 2001
Re: City of Signal Hill et al. v Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Dear City Representative:
Through the informal ad hoc coalition known as the Coalition for Practical Regulation,
we have been asked to represent a number of cities in the County, to challenge action taken by
the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board") in connection with
recent storm water runoff orders and regulations issued by the Regional Board. In particular, we
have been asked to pursue litigation and take other legal action to challenge recent Regional
Board action on January 25, 2001, in connection with the issuance of trash total maximum daily
loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed (hereafter collectively "Petition"). With this retainer
letter, the City of Vernon, a municipal corporation ("City") is retaining the law firm of Rutan &
Tucker to challenge actions of the Regional Board and/or its Executive Officer, and to take all
such other action as is necessary and directed by the Cities' representatives with the Coalition for
Practical Regulation, in connection with the TMDLs in issue, and in connection with related
issues concerning storm water runoff, including the upcoming proposed Municipal National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit.
The purpose of this letter is to confirm the City's retention of Rutan & Tucker in
connection with these matters. This retainer letter therefore sets forth the terms upon which the
City has retained Rutan & Tucker and also provides its consent and appropriate conflict waivers
for any potential conflicts that may be created by Rutan & Tucker's joint representation of the
Cities and/or its representation of other clients on unrelated matters.
Our fees are generally based on the hourly design rates set by the firm, subject to periodic
review and change, for the various attorneys involved in handling the matter. The rates vary
depending upon the level of seniority, expertise and experience of the individuals involved. At
present, my hourly design rate for public entity clients is $260 an hour; however, because we are
in part representing existing public entity clients, our hourly rate for purposes of this matter will
be a composite rate of $195 per hour for all attorney time. Further, whenever possible, legal
227/065121-0067
159670.01 a03/05/01
[NIAMCKER
JTAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City Representative
March 5, 2001
Page 2
interns, law clerks, legal assistants and other professionals with a lower billing rate will be
utilized, consistent with the proper representation of the interests of our clients in connection
with this matter and without sacrificing proficiency. In addition to fees, our clients are also
billed for all necessary costs incurred in connection with the representation, such as document
copying costs, messenger service fees, telecopying fees, long distance telephone costs, mileage,
computer assisted research, filing' fees, reporter fees, administrative record fees, and other related
litigation and petition costs and out-of-pocket expenses.
We render our statements on a monthly basis and they are payable within 30 days from
the date of the invoice. The invoices will describe the work performed during the billing period
and the identity of the individuals providing services, as well as a break down of billed costs. It
is customary in matters of this nature that we receive a retainer as an advance against fees and
costs prior to commencing work on the matter. However, given the prior representation of Cities
who were a part of the Coalition for Practical Regulation in connection with a challenge to
Regional Board action on the Los Angeles County SUSMP, and given our existing relationship
with other member Cities on various other matters, no retainer amount is being required.
However, the City of Signal Hill, on behalf of the Coalition for Practical Regulation, may be
requesting a retainer amount for legal and other expenses to be incurred by the Coalition.
Each City shall be responsible for its pro rata portion of the fees and costs per capita, i.e.,
each City is responsible for paying its share of the invoices of the total billings, on a per capita
basis, based on the number of Cities identified as Petitioners at the time of the invoice. If the
City determines to drop -out of the Coalition, the City shall be responsible for the costs and fees
incurred up to the time it withdraws from the proceedings, including the costs and fees to
effectuate the withdrawal. Monthly invoices showing the costs and fees incurred will be sent to
the City of Signal Hill, and any portion of the retainer amount remaining, upon the conclusion of
this matter, if any, will be returned to the City within 30 days thereafter, by Signal Hill. If Cities
are added to the Coalition after the Petitions in issue are filed, the pro rata allocation of the City
will be adjusted downward to account for such additional parties.
In accordance with the requirements of California Business and Professions Code section
6148, I wanted to advise you that Rutan & Tucker maintains errors and omissions insurance
coverage applicable to the services to be rendered as contemplated by this Agreement.
As you know, Rutan & Tucker is currently acting as legal counsel to a number of other
cities and school districts in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside counties, as well as a large
number of other private clients. Rutan & Tucker's representation of such public and private
entities in such other matters is unrelated to its representation of the City in this matter. Rutan &
Tucker therefore reserves the right to continue to represent such parties in these unrelated matters
and any other parties in the future which may be adverse to the City, but which are unrelated to
our representation of the City in connection with the subject proceeding. Your signature below
227/065121-0067
159670.01 a03/05/01
UTAN
MCKERg
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City Representative
March 5, 2001
Page 3
will confirm this understanding and your waiver on behalf of the City of any such potential
conflicts.
In representing the City Petitioners in these proceedings, it is our belief that the interests
of all Petitioners, both financially and legally, will be consistent and that we will be able to
proceed with a common strategy. Yet, there is always a potential for a conflict of interest to arise
after additional facts involving the proceedings become known and/or as a result of a divergence
in interest in the future because of positions that have or may be taken by the Respondents. One
of the purposes of this retainer agreement is to provide full disclosure of the scope of our
representation and to minimize any such potential conflicts.
California Rule of Professional Conduct section 3-310 provides in part that:
Rule 3-310. Avoiding The Representation Of Adverse
Interests.
(C) A member shall not, without the informed written
consent of each client:
(1) Accept representation of more than one client in
a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict; or
(2) Accept or continue representation of more than
one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients actually
conflict; or
(3) Represent a client in a matter and at the same
time in a separate matter accept as a client a person or entity whose
interest in the first matter is adverse to the client in the first matter.
(D) A member who represents two or more clients shall
not enter into an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against
the clients without the informed written consent of each client.
In accordance with Rule 3-310, please be advised that there is a potential for the interests
of the Petitioners to become adverse in the future. As an example, a potential conflict could arise
if one or more of the Cities determines to proceed with a storm water capture program through
settlement or litigation, that is beyond what other Cities believe is reasonable under the
circumstances. Although at this time there is no indication that such a conflict exists, and the
interests of the Cities are not in anyway presently adverse, such a potential for adverse interests
227/065121-0067
159670.01 a03/05/01
0'JTAN
&tT JCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City Representative
March 5, 2001
Page 4
exists, and could cause a different settlement or prosecution strategy in pursing the Petition. If a
conflict does occur, the City agrees that Rutan & Tucker may continue with its representation of
the City of Signal Hill and those Cities that are taking positions consistent with the City of Signal
Hill, with the conflicted City then being permitted to substitute in new counsel, if it so desires.
Your signature and acceptance of this retainer agreement below will constitute the City's
approval of this provision on conflicts of interest and will also permit Rutan & Tucker to
continue to represent other private and public clients who are or may be adverse to the City
presently and in the future, both in litigation and in non -litigation matters, but unrelated to the
instant proceedings, as well as to continue to represent the other City Petitioners in connection
with the matters referenced herein. Of course, in the event an unwaivable conflict occurs, and
we can no longer continue to represent the City's interests, any amounts remaining in the retainer
collected by Signal Hill that are owed to the City in accordance with the above -referenced
formula, would be returned to the City, along with copies of all research requested and other
legal analysis prepared in the course of our representation of your interests in connection with
the Petition.
Please recognize that although there is a potential for adverse interests in the future, we
believe at this time that collective action on the part of each of the respective Petitioners is to
their mutual advantage. It is our belief that there is a strong common interest among each of the
Petitioners involved in the subject Petition, which permits and allows for a coordinated strategy
in prosecuting the Petition. In addition, to the extent any consultants and/or expert witnesses will
be necessary to pursue these matters, at this time, we believe that a coordinated strategy among
experts and consultants will be cost effective.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your attorneys and anticipate a productive and
harmonious relationship. If, however, you become concerned for any reason with the services
we have or are performing, or the fees that have been assessed to the City, we encourage you to
bring this matter to our attention immediately. If we perceive a problem with the representation,
we will similarly bring it to your attention.
Most such problems should be rectified by communication and discussion. However, a
dispute could arise between Rutan & Tucker and the City which cannot be resolved by
negotiation. We believe that such attorney/client disputes are most satisfactorily resolved
through binding arbitration rather than by litigation in court.
Arbitration, as you know, is a process by which both parties to a dispute agree to submit
the matter to a retired judge or other arbitrator who has expertise in the area and to abide by the
arbitrator's decision, instead of litigating in court. In arbitration, there is no right to a trial by jury
and the arbitrator's legal and factual determinations are generally not subject to appellate review.
Arbitration rules of evidence and procedure are often less formal and rigid than in a court trial.
227/065121-0067
159670.01 a03/05/01
1�UTAN
WOKER9
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City Representative
March 5, 2001
Page 5
Arbitration usually results in a decision much more quickly than proceedings in court, and the
attorneys' fees and other costs incurred by both sides are usually substantially less.
Both the United States and California Supreme Courts have endorsed arbitration as an
accepted and favored method of resolving disputes, because it is economical and expeditious.
Arbitration is also less acrimonious and more confidential than traditional litigation and is,
therefore, particularly suited to resolution of disputes between attorneys and their clients.
Your agreement to arbitrate disputes is not a condition of our agreeing to represent the
City, and if you do not wish to agree to arbitrate, you should advise me before signing the copy
of this letter, so we can delete this section of the agreement. The City is free to discuss the
advisability of arbitration with us or your independent counsel or any of your other advisors and
to ask any questions which it may have.
By signing this letter, the City agrees that any disputes arising out of or relating to this
agreement, our relationship, or the services performed (including but not limited to disputes
regarding attorneys' fees or costs and claims of negligence, breach of contract or fiduciary duty,
fraud or any claim based upon a statute), shall be resolved by submission to binding arbitration
in Los Angeles County, California, before a retired judge or justice or other agreed upon
arbitrator. If we are unable to agree upon an arbitrator, each party will name one arbitrator and
the two named persons will select a neutral arbitrator, who will act as the sole arbitrator.
If you wish Rutan & Tucker to represent the City in connection with this matter, we are
requesting that you provide informed written consent by signing and returning this letter to us as
soon as possible. We encourage you to seek independent counsel if you so desire regarding the
importance of this consent, and we emphasize that you remain completely free to speak to
independent counsel at any time, even if you decide to sign this Retainer Agreement and provide
the consent requested herein.
I would appreciate it if you would execute and return the enclosed copy of this letter,
indicating the City's agreement with the above and authorizing us to act accordingly.
227/065121-0067
159670.01 a03/05/01
R�UTAN
MCKER3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City Representative
March 5, 2001
Page 6
If you have any questions or comments with respect to any of the matters set forth in this
letter, please do not hesitate to call me. I look forward to working with you and the City and to a
successful representation of your interests. Thank you again for considering Rutan & Tucker.
Sincerely,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Richard Montevideo
RM:cic
I have read and understood the contents of this letter and consent to Rutan & Tucker
representing the City on the matters and terms set forth above.
City of Vernon, a municipal corporation
Dated: March, 2001 By:
�- LEONIS C. MALBURG, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Bruce V. Malkenhorst, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Eduardo Olivo, City Attorney
227/065121-0067
159670.01 a03/05/01
Giron, Nell
From:
Lehr, Judy
Sent.
Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:50 AM
To:
Giron, Nelly
Cc:
Orosco, Gloria
Subject:
Title of Resolution After Closed Session
Importance: High
Eddie wrote a letter about a matter on closed session (initiation of litigation) today concerning Rutan
& Tucker. Attached is the title of the resolution concerning the closed session item.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LETTER AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
VERNON AND THE LAW FIRM OF RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP TO CONTEST THE ACTIONS OF
THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
1
Memo
To: Gloria Orosco, Chief Deputy City Clerk
From: Judy
Date: 03/14/01
Re: Letter Agreement with Rutan &Tucker - City of Signal Hill, et al. v. Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Transmitted herewith for processing are two original signed letter agreements with
Rutan & Tucker that have been approved as to form by Mr. Olivo. The letter agreement
was approved by the City Council on 3/7/01 by Resolution No. 7724.
Enclosures (2)
yv`"
CITY COUNCIL
LEONIS C. MALBURG
Mayor
THOMAS A. YBARRA
Mayor Pro -Tern
WM. 'BILL" DAVIS
Councilman
H. "LARRY" GONZALES
Councilman
W. MICHAEL MCCORMICK
Councilman
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST
City Administrator / City Clerk
FAX (323) 581-7924
CITY HALL
4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058
TELEPHONE (323) 583-8811
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Attn: Richard Montevideo
P.O. Box 1950
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950
Re: Letter of Agreement
Dear Mr. Montevideo:
EDUARDO OLIVO
City Attorney
FAX: (562) 927-8722
KEVIN WILSON
Director of Community Services & Water
FAX: (323) 588-2761
April 11, 2001
KENNETH J. DeDARIO
Director of Municipal Utilities
FAX: (323) 583--1983
STEVEN E. PARKER
Fire Chief
FAX: (323) 581-1385
BRUCE W. OLSON
Police Chief
FAX: (323) 583-5236
Transmitted herewith is an original copy of a fully executed Letter of
Agreement by and between the City of Vernon and Rutan & Tucker, LLP
approved by the Vernon City Council at their meeting held March 7, 2001.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Eduardo
Olivo at 323/583-8811 ext. 310.
Lerk
cc: Eduardo.Olivo
Resolution No. 7724
Agreement File No. 01-021