By Terrie Best, San Diego ASA Court Support Coordinator
Last week in a dramatic move, newly elected San Diego Mayor,
Bob Filner presumably put an end to the investigation and persecution of
medical cannabis dispensaries by the city’s Neighborhood Code Compliance. Additionally, Mayor Filner directed the City
Attorney, Jan Goldsmith to drop twelve pending civil suits against medical
cannabis dispensary operators for zoning code violations. These suits relied
heavily on testimony from code enforcement officers and, by his own admission,
without this testimony Goldsmith has no standing to pursue the cases.
The Mayor requested the civil cases not move forward in
further harassment of the named dispensary operators because he chooses to move
in a positive direction and put forth a zoning ordinance for the operation of
dispensaries.
With no available testimony from the code compliance team
and the City Attorney’s own client, the Mayor, no longer wanting to pursue
litigation, it would seem the bottom has dropped out of Goldsmith’s twelve civil
suits.
However, in a
letter signed by Goldsmith, copied to the Mayor and City Council and provided
by a respondent in one of Goldsmith’s cases, the City Attorney has created his
own terms and indicates he will only consider dropping the cases “without
prejudice.” Meaning at anytime Goldsmith could reopen the cases and resume what
has been a nightmare for the twelve victims of these code violation suits.
One respondent, Dexter Padilla, who in May of 2012, had
his criminal case dismissed in the interest of justice, says he knows the
Mayor intended for his ordeal to be over. He feels the Mayor directed full resolution
of these cases, not a settlement which is no settlement at all and could expose
Dexter and the others to future litigation from Goldsmith.
More curious and troubling, is the language in Goldsmith’s
letter which bizarrely suggests Dexter has shunned the settlement because “he
is not willing to waive fees and costs,” a statement Dexter never made. By this
Goldsmith statement to Dexter:
“A
dismissal without prejudice without having to pay our costs and with waiver of
your costs is what you get. If the Mayor wants to do otherwise, you are welcome
to reach a separate agreement with him on this. Our office will not be a party
to the City paying costs or fees.”
The City Attorney misleads the carbon copied recipients by
insinuating Dexter is quibbling over fees when in actuality Dexter simply requests
a true end to his case as was intended by the Mayor. The statement also suggests the respondents are
free to take the unethical action of approaching the City’s client, the Mayor,
for a “separate agreement” thus further harassing litigants and indicating
Goldsmith’s disregard for the Mayor’s request.
The attorneys for respondents in this case and all cases are
prohibited from contacting opposing clients directly. Since permission has now been given to
contact the Mayor it is unclear whether Goldsmith will actually facilitate this
or if counsel for the respondents will take this route on their own.
To complicate matters for Dexter, months ago, when he found
there were multiple false affidavits and declarations filed by Deputy City
Attorney Gabriella Brannan in his zoning violation case, he was forced to file
a cross-complaint to protect himself and have his day in court to disprove the
falsehoods in the declarations.
In multiple attempts, Dexter’s Attorney, Mark Wuerfel, requested
information essential to settling the cross-complaint against the City Attorney’s
Office, such as the identity of each trial attorney for each cross-defendant. The
law prohibits attorneys who are a party to a suit from representing each other.
Shot back from the City Attorney was
this dismissive statement:
“Mr.
Wuerfel’s letter is chock full of wild and untrue accusations, including
allegations that declarations were submitted in violation of perjury laws.”
By refusing to name the trial attorneys for the cross-defendants
or acknowledge Dexter’s cross-complaint as a civil action in court, and preferring
to dismiss it as “wild accusations,” Goldsmith is preventing any settlement in
the cross-complaint at all.
Goldsmith’s refusal to offer a full resolution in the twelve
cases at the Mayor’s request suggests he believes the Mayor is not the client.
Which begs the question, who is Goldsmith answerable to? We are seeing tactics similar to those of District
Attorney and failed mayoral candidate, Bonnie Dumanis which seek only to punish
medical cannabis patients, departing from justice and the law to do so.
Posts
