Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 97-35581 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -3558 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RETURNING A CLAIM AND REQUEST FOR LATE CLAIM FILED BY "21" INTERNATIONAL (ET AL) ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 2, 1996 RELATING TO CLAIMS FOR INDEMNITY IN ARVISO V. "21" INTERNATIONAL (L.A. SupCt #BC142247) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. The Council finds that heretofore (on or about December 2, 1996), the Defendants in the case of Arviso v. Chevron (L.A. SupCt #BC142247) 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 Council further finds 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 o 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. o 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. o 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 1994. O 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. o 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. o specifically: any and all claims relating to public and/or private nuisance were files more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994. Section 3. The Council further finds that claimants' petition to file a "late Claim" (under Gov't Code §945.4/946.6 is not justified under applicable statutory and case law, in that: o 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, there has apparently been a change of heart and the claim is now made without any explanation for delay as required by G.C. 911.4/911.6. O This City has been prejudiced by the additional delay because the gravamen of the litigation involves 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 the fray at this late date. Resolution No. 97 -3558 Page 2 Section 4. The 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: o each, every and all of such claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations o specifically: any and all claims based on assault charges are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. o specifically: any and all claims based on trespass are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. o specifically: any and all claims based on intentional and/ore negligent infliction of emotional distress are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. o specifically: any and all claims relating to negligence are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. o specifically: any and all claims based on ultra hazardous activities are barred by the applicable statutes and laws relating thereto. o 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 returned 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) ]aches 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 G.C. 911.3(b), 913(b), 911.4, and Hasty v. Co. L.A. 61 CA3d 623 @626 and Han v. Pomona 43 CR2d 616. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of January, 1997. ATTEST: MAYOR zdia672) I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution No. 97 -3558 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of January, 1997. AYES: Councilman - Breazeal, Budds, Gillanders, Souder, Wilson NOES: Councilman-None ABSENT: Councilman -None 1 1 1