Resolution No. 93781
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
ma
RESOLUTION NO. 9378
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VERNON AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN PHASE TWO OF
THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE NPDES BASIN
PLAN/TRIENNIAL REVIEW AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO
DO ALL ACTIONS DEEMED NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE
CONCERNING THE LAWSUITS
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2001, the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region ("Regional Board") adopted
Order No. 01-182, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") Permit for Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges
within the County of Los Angeles and the incorporated cities therein,
except the City of Long Beach (hereinafter "NPDES Permit"); and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2005, the City Council of the City
lof Vernon adopted Resolution No. 8924 authorizing the City's
participation in phase one of a lawsuit challenging the Basin
Plan/Triennial Review to compel the Regional Board to complete the
legally required comprehensive economic analysis of the urban runoff
requirements, review and change specific water quality standards of
concern to the cities and compel the Regional Board to complete the
legally required implementation program and updates to the Basin Plan;
and
WHEREAS, phase one of the lawsuit determined if the cities
had legal standing to bring the challenge to the Basin Plan and is now
concluded; and
WHEREAS, phase two of the lawsuit challenges the lack of
disclosure of the economic impacts on the cities, standards challenges
and the lack of legally required updates to the Basin Plan; and
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
WHEREAS, the member cities of the Coalition for Practical
Regulation ("CPR") desire to move into the second phase of the
lawsuit, i.e., the preparation of the Administrative Record and the
trial; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost for the second phase of the
lawsuit is approximately $400,000.00 to $500,000.00 over a two year
period, which cost will be shared among the cities joining in the
second phase of the litigation; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost to the City of Vernon over two
fiscal years is $25,000.00 if 20 cities join into the second phase of
the litigation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Downey will act as the disbursing
agency; and
WHEREAS, the City believes the challenges to the Basin
Plan/Triennial Review are appropriate to rectify the improper actions
and policies of the Regional and/or State Board.
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 and authorizes participating with other cities and agencies
in phase two of the lawsuit challenging the Basin Plan/Triennial
Review.
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
authorizes the retention of Richard Montevideo, Esq., of the law
offices of Rutan & Tucker, in coordination with other Los Angeles
- 2 -
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
County Cities, to prepare the Administrative Record and represent the
City of Vernon at the trial of the lawsuit and to further advise,
assist and represent the City in all matters concerning the lawsuit.
SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
authorizes the payment for its share of the litigation costs
associated with the second phase of the lawsuit pursuant to the terms
of its retainer agreement with Rutan & Tucker.
SECTION 5: 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 incorporated by reference.
SECTION 6: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
authorizes the Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem to execute said Letter Agreement
for, and on behalf of, the City of Vernon and the City Clerk is hereby
authorized to attest thereto.
SECTION 7: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
directs the City Clerk, or her designee, to send a fully executed
Letter Agreement and a copy of this resolution to:
Richard Montevideo, Esq.
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
P.O. Box 1950
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950
SECTION 8: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
authorizes the City Administrator, or his designee, to execute any
documents necessary to implement and carry out the purposes of the
lawsuit.
- 3 -
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
SECTION 9: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall
certify to the passage of this resolution, and thereupon and
thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 2007.
ATTEST:
y Clerk
Name:
Leonis C. Malburg
Title: Mayor / Xayga; Drn-w.
- 4 -
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, MANUELA GIRON, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 9378, was
duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon at a regular
meeting of the City Council duly held on Monday, August 6, 2007, and
thereafter was duly signed by the Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem of the City of
Vernon.
i
MANUELA GIRO , City Clerk
(SEAL)
- 5 -
EXHIBIT
0
RUTAN
&TUCKER
ATTOR NUYS AT LAW
Richard Montevideo
Direct Dial: (714) 662-4642
E-mail: rontevideo@rutan.com
City of Vernon
611 ANTON BOULEVARD, FOURTEENTH FLOOR
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1931
DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: POST OFFICE BOX 1950
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1950
TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035
INTERNET ADDRESS www,rutan.com
July 9, 2007
Re: Triennial Review/Basin Plan Challenge
Dear City Representative:
ORANGE COUNTY
SILICON VALLEY
(408)289-8777
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Through the informal ad hoc coalition known as the Coalition for Practical Regulation
("CPR"), we have been asked to represent a number of cities in Los Angeles County to challenge
certain actions taken by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional
Board"), the State Water Resources Control Board ("State Board") and/or the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), in connection with various urban and storm water
runoff orders, regulations and requirements. Most recently, we have been asked to prosecute a
challenge to the recently completed 2004 Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan for
the Los Angeles Region ("Basin Plan") by the Regional Board, as well as to prosecute a
challenge to the Basin Plan itself. One of the main challenges to the 2004 Triennial Review and
Basin Plan is the perceived failure of both the State and Regional Boards to comply with State
and/or federal law when adopting and subsequently amending the Basin Plan, and when
conducting a Triennial Review, e.g., not developing water quality standards and objectives that
are reasonably and economically achievable, as they relate to storm water and urban runoff.
With this retainer letter, the City of Vernon ("City"), a municipal corporation, is
confirming its retention of the law firm of Rutan & Tucker to represent the City to prosecute the
Triennial Review/Basin Plan Challenge, and/or to represent it in all other related matters
concerning stormwater/urban runoff as the City has or may request, pursuant to Rutan &
Tucker's representation of various CPR association Cities. The Building Industry Legal Defense
Foundation (`GILD") has also agreed to join in as a Plaintiff/Petitioner in the Triennial
Review/Basin Plan Challenge.
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 other
agencies entities and associations in connection therewith, and/or in 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.
227/065121-0072
797896.03 a07/09/07
RUTAN
&TUCKERS
A T 1'.,0 R N L Y 5 A lL q W
July 9, 2007
Page 2
Starting in 2007, my hourly design rate was set at $405 per 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 $250 per hour for all attorney time. This rate of $250 per hour, however,
may be adjusted upward, as approved by representatives of the City of Signal Hill or the City of
Downey.
Further, whenever possible, legal 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, clerk and reporter's transcript fees and costs,
service fees, telecopying fees, long distance telephone costs, mileage, computer assisted
research, filing fees, expert and consultant fees and costs, administrative record fees, and other
related litigation 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 this office's prior
representations of Cities who were a part of CPR in connection with this and other storm water
and urban runoff matters, and given our existing relationship with your city, no retainer amount
is being requested. Yet, the City of Signal Hill or the City of Downey may be requesting a
retainer amount for legal and other expenses to be incurred in this regard.
Each City shall be responsible for its pro rata portion of the fees and costs, i.e., each City
is responsible for paying its share of the invoices of the total billings, on a pro rata basis, based
on the number of Cities identified as clients of this firm in connection with such matters at the
time of the invoice, with each City paying an equal amount. If the City determines to drop out of
the proceeding in issue, 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,
if any. Monthly invoices showing the costs and fees incurred will be sent by the City of Signal
Hill or the City of Downey, and any portion of the retainer amount remaining, upon the
conclusion of this matter, if any, will be returned to said City within 30 days thereafter, by Signal
Hill or Downey. The City of Signal Hill and/or Downey have agreed to be responsible for
administering all financial/billing matters.
BILD and certain cities agreed to join in the Triennial Review/Basin Plan litigation,
initially, only through the demurrer/pleading stage (referred to as "Phase 1" of the lawsuit), i.e.,
up to the time in which an answer is filed on behalf of the State and Regional Boards, with BILD
and some cities in this group desiring to limit their financial contribution in this Phase 1 of the
litigation to a specific dollar amount. As the Phase I portion of the lawsuit has been concluded,
227/065121-0072
797896.03 a07/09/07
RUTAN
&TUCKER
A T f O N N L Y 5 A 'f L A W
July 9, 2007
Page 3
the litigation has now moved into the Second Phase, i.e., the preparation of the Administrative
Record and the trial of the lawsuit. The City's signature below will affirm its desire to continue
on as a plaintiff/petitioner in the lawsuit, or as a party agreeing to financially support the
prosecution of the lawsuit but not as a named plaintiff/petitioner.
As you know, Rutan & Tucker is currently acting as legal counsel to a number of cities
and school districts in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside counties, as well as a large number of
private clients, some of which are presently adverse to some cities we are representing in the
Triennial Review/Basin Plan lawsuit. However, Rutan & Tucker's representations of such
public and private entities in the other matters, are unrelated to its representation of the cities in
this matter. Rutan & Tucker therefore reserves the right to continue to represent such parties in
these other 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 cities and BILD in connection with the
subject proceedings. Your signature below will confirm this understanding and will confirm
your waiver, on behalf of the City, of any such actual or potential conflicts of interest.
In representing the cities and BILD in these proceedings, it is our belief that the interests
of all such parties, 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 any respondent or
defendant. 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 -3 10 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
227/065121-0072
797896.03 a07/09/07
UTAN
&TJCKERi
A T f 0 K N [ Y 5 A 'Il A W
July 9, 2007
Page 4
(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 Cities and entities and agencies associated with the Cities in these proceedings (e.g.
BILD), to become adverse in the future. As an example, a potential conflict could arise if one or
more of the Cities wishes to proceed with a strategy in the Triennial Review/Basin Plan lawsuit,
or with some other storm water matter, that is beyond what other Cities this office represents
believe are reasonable or appropriate under the circumstances. Although at this time there is no
indication that such a conflict exists, and the interests of the Cities and other entities this office
represents are not in anyway presently adverse, such a potential for adverse interests exists, and
could cause a different settlement or prosecution strategy in pursing the Triennial Review/Basin
Plan lawsuit. 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 and entities that are taking positions
consistent with the City of Signal Hill, and may withdraw from its representation of the
conflicted city, 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 cities and entities 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 or Downey 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 these proceedings.
Please recognize that although there is a potential for adverse interests in the future on the
Triennial Review/Basin Plan lawsuit, we believe at this time that collective action on the part of
each of the respective cities and BILD is to their mutual advantage. It is our belief that there is a
strong common interest among each of the parties involved in the subject proceedings, which
permits and allows for a coordinated strategy in pursuing these matters. 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.
227/065121-0072
797896.03 a07/09/07
RUTAN
&TUCKER
A IT 0 K N L Y 5 A I' L A W
July 9, 2007
Page 5
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.
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.
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 this letter, indicating the City's
agreement with the above and authorizing us to act accordingly.
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
227/065121-0072
797896.03 a07/09/07
RIJTAN
&TUCKERS
Ai r o k N LYS A 'Il A W
July 9, 2007
Page 6
I have read and understood the contents of this letter and consent to Rutan & Tucker,
LLP representing the City in accordance with the terms set forth above.
CITY OF VERNON
Dated:
Leonis C. Malburg, Mayor
ATTEST:
IM
Manuela Giron, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jeff Harrison, City Attorney
227/065121-0072
797896.03 a07/09/07
SUPPORTING
DOCUMEN
TS
RUTAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
July 9, 2007
Mr. Leonis C. Malburg
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
Re: Triennial Review/Basin Plan Challenge
Dear Mayor Malburg:
Richard Montevideo
Direct Dial: (714) 662-4642
E-mail: rontevideo@rutan.com
Receivm
AUG 0 g 1007
Communi I Services
Through the informal ad hoc coalition known as the Coalition for Practical Regulation
("CPR"), we have been asked to represent a number of cities in Los Angeles County to challenge
certain actions taken by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional
Board"), the State Water Resources Control Board ("State Board") and/or the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), in connection with various urban and storm water
runoff orders, regulations and requirements. Most recently, we have been asked to prosecute a
challenge to the recently completed 2004 Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan for
the Los Angeles Region ("Basin Plan") by the Regional Board, as well as to prosecute a
challenge to the Basin Plan itself. One of the main challenges to the 2004 Triennial Review and
Basin Plan is the perceived failure of both the State and Regional Boards to comply with State
and/or federal law when adopting and subsequently amending the Basin Plan, and when
conducting a Triennial Review, e.g., not developing water quality standards and objectives that
are reasonably and economically achievable, as they relate to storm water and urban runoff.
With this retainer letter, the City of Vernon ("City"), a municipal corporation, is
confirming its retention of the law firm of Rutan & Tucker to represent the City to prosecute the
Triennial Revievv/Basin Plan Challenge, and/or to represent it in all other related matters
concerning stormwater/urban runoff as the City has or may request, pursuant to Rutan &
Tucker's representation of various CPR association Cities. The Building Industry Legal Defense
Foundation ("BILD") has also agreed to join in as a Plaintiff/Petitioner in the Triennial
Review/Basin Plan Challenge.
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 other
agencies entities and associations in connection therewith, and/or in 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.
Rutan & Tucker, LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1 950 1 714-641 -51 00 1 Fax 71 4-546-9035 227/065121-0072
Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 834407 01 a07/09/07
RUTAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Leonis C. Malburg
July 9, 2007
Page 2
Starting in 2007, my hourly design rate was set at $405 per 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 $250 per hour for all attorney time. This rate of $250 per hour, however,
may be adjusted upward, as approved by representatives of the City of Signal Hill or the City of
Downey.
Further, whenever possible, legal 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, clerk and reporter's transcript fees and costs,
service fees, telecopying fees, long distance telephone costs, mileage, computer assisted
research, filing fees, expert and consultant fees and costs, administrative record fees, and other
related litigation 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 this office's prior
representations of Cities who were a part of CPR in connection with this and other storm water
and urban runoff matters, and given our existing relationship with your city, no retainer amount
is being requested. Yet, the City of Signal Hill or the City of Downey may be requesting a
retainer amount for legal and other expenses to be incurred in this regard.
Each City shall be responsible for its pro rata portion of the fees and costs, i.e., each City
is responsible for paying its share of the invoices of the total billings, on a pro rata basis, based
on the number of Cities identified as clients of this firm in connection with such matters at the
time of the invoice, with each City paying an equal amount. If the City determines to drop out of
the proceeding in issue, 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,
if any. Monthly invoices showing the costs and fees incurred will be sent by the City of Signal
Hill or the City of Downey, and any portion of the retainer amount remaining, upon the
conclusion of this matter, if any, will be returned to said City within 30 days thereafter, by Signal
Hill or Downey. The City of Signal Hill and/or Downey have agreed to be responsible for
administering all financial/billing matters.
BILD and certain cities agreed to join in the Triennial Review/Basin Plan litigation,
initially, only through the demurrer/pleading stage (referred to as "Phase I" of the lawsuit), i.e.,
up to the time in which an answer is filed on behalf of the State and Regional Boards, with BILD
and some cities in this group desiring to limit their financial contribution in this Phase 1 of the
litigation to a specific dollar amount. As the Phase I portion of the lawsuit has been concluded,
227/065121-0072
834407,01 a07/09/07
RU"TAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Leonis C. Malburg
July 9, 2007
Page 3
the litigation has now moved into the Second Phase, i.e., the preparation of the Administrative
Record and the trial of the lawsuit. The City's signature below will affirm its desire to continue
on as a plaintiff/petitioner in the lawsuit, or as a party agreeing to financially support the
prosecution of the lawsuit but not as a named plaintiff/petitioner.
As you know, Rutan & Tucker is currently acting as legal counsel to a number of cities
and school districts in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside counties, as well as a large number of
private clients, some of which are presently adverse to some cities we are representing in the
Triennial Review/Basin Plan lawsuit. However, Rutan & Tucker's representations of such
public and private entities in the other matters, are unrelated to its representation of the cities in
this matter. Rutan & Tucker therefore reserves the right to continue to represent such parties in
these other 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 cities and BILD in connection with the
subject proceedings. Your signature below will confirm this understanding and will confirm
your waiver, on behalf of the City, of any such actual or potential conflicts of interest.
In representing the cities and BILD in these proceedings, it is our belief that the interests
of all such parties, 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 any respondent or
defendant. 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
1-27/065 1 21-0072
834407.01 a07/09/07
RUTAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Leonis C. Malburg
July 9, 2007
Page 5
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.
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.
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 this letter, indicating the City's
agreement with the above and authorizing us to act accordingly.
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
227/065 1 21-0072
834407.01 a07/09/07
RUTAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Leonis C. Malburg
July 9, 2007
Page 6
I have read and understood the contents of this letter and consent to Rutan & Tucker,
LLP representing the City in accordance with the terms set forth above.
CITY OF VERNON
Dated: / ByG�'zu,l�CLu
L onis C. Malbur . Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
4Mnuela Giron i
City Clerk
APPROVED ASTO FORM:
C
City Attornty
Dated: xA / d-7
227/065121-0072
834407,01 a07/09/07
�drf � Vj
'0
4305 Santa Fe Avenue, Vernon, California 90058
Telephone (323) 583-8811
August 20, 2007
Mr. Richard Montevideo, Esq.
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
P.O. Box 1950
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950
Re: Letter Agreement for Triennial Review/Basin Plan Challenge
Dear Mr. Montevideo:
Transmitted herewith is a fully executed letter agreement and a copy
of Resolution No. 9378, approved by City Council on August 6, 2007.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Mr. Kevin
Wilson, at (323) 583-8811 ext. 245.
Very truly yours,
Ne y
City Clerk
NG:dr
c: S. Kevin Wilson
Resolution No. 9378
Agreement File No. 07-080
E�,-cfusivefy Industriaf