Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 95-34541 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -3454 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING A CLAIM AND REQUEST FOR LATE CLAIM FILED BY CHEVRON (ET AL) ON OR ABOUT JULY 27, 1995 RELATING TO CLAIMS FOR INDEMNITY IN ABALO V. CHEVRON (L.A. Sup Ct #BC112185) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that heretofore (on or about July 27, 1995), the Defendants in the case of Abalo v. Chevron (L.A. Sup 1Ct #BC112185) filed a claim for indemnity against this City (inter alia) for indemnity and contribution by this City for any damages which may be awarded to the Plaintiffs in such action. SECTION 2. The City Council further fords that each, every and all of such claims are untimely and filed too late under Section 911 et seq of the California Government Code which allows only six months within which to file such claims. specifically: any and all claims based on assault charges were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994 specifically: any and all claims based on trespass were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994 specifically: any and all claims based on intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994 specifically: any and all claims relating to negligence were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994 specifically: any and all claims based on ultra hazardous activities were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994 specifically: any and all claims relating to public and/or private nuisance were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994 SECTION 3. The City Council further finds that claimants' petition to file a "late Claim" (under Government Code §945.4/946.6) is not justified under applicable statutory and case law, in that: Claimants have not shown any reason (mistake, inadvertence, etc.) as to why such claim could not have been filed within the statutory period; claimants knew of such litigation against them in September 1994 (if not prior thereto); claimants' then attorney acknowledged said litigation in September of 1994 and indicated to the then attorney for this City that no claim for indemnity would be made; ten months later,' the re -has apparently been a change of heart and the claim is now made without any explanation for delay as regu.iired-by :Govei.une-r_t Code §911.4/911.6. This City has been prejudiced by the additional delay because the gravau%:n . cf' the litigation 'LT-wolves matters of more than thirty years duration; the facts and evidence to be adduced was already faint and'now becomes more so; settlements have been entered into which were global in scope on the basis that (as-represented) no such claims would be filed; and it would be prejudicial to require this City to re- enter't a fray at this at date. Resolution No. 95 -3454 Page 2 SECTION 4. The City Council further finds that such claim (and any and all of its sub - parts) involves threatened litigation barred under the applicable statutes of limitation (usually one year), within which such litigation must be filed, as follows: each, every and all of such claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations specifically: any and all claims based on assault charges are barred by the applicable statute of limitations specifically: any and all claims based on trespass are barred by the applicable statute of limitations specifically: any and all claims based on intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress are barred by the applicable statute of limitations specifically: any and all claims relating to negligence are barred by the applicable statute of limitations specifically: any and all claims based on ultra hazardous activities are barred by the applicable statutes and laws relating thereto specifically: any and all claims relating to public and/or private nuisance are barred by the applicable statute of limitations SECTION 5. Accordingly, said Claim is rejected as a) filed too late, and b) involving litigation which is now barred by applicable statutes. Said Petition to file a "late Claim" is denied based on: a) not filed within a reasonable period, b) laches demonstrated by the Claimants, and c) prejudice to this City by the unnecessary delay. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall notify the Claimants (and all relevant other parties of this action) of the actions taken herein, together with such other information as may be required in Government Code §911.3(b), 913(b), 911.4, and Hasty v. Co. L.A. 61 CA3d 623 @626 and Han v. Pomona 1995DAR_. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of September, 1995. MAYOR 1 1 1 1 1 1 Resolution No. 95 -3454 Page 3 I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution No. 95 -3454 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the ,5th day of September, by the following vote: AYES: Councilman - Budds, Gillanders, Souder, Wilson, Breazeal NOES: Councilman-None ABSENT: Councilman -None ity G/lerk