A Los Angeles utility customer is appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal a federal judge’s dismissal with prejudice of his lawsuit against the city that alleges civil rights violations.
Antwon Jones sued the city of Los Angeles in the Central District of California in December 2020 over a $1,374 Department of Water and Power (DWP) bill, however U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips granted the city summary judgment on June 14 based on statute of limitations and not on the fact that Jones’ original attorney, Paul Paradis, pleaded guilty to a bribery charge.
“What’s frustrating about this lawsuit is the way that it fails,” said Nicole Clark, CEO of legal analytics firm Trellis Law. “It’s always disappointing to see a strong case fall through the cracks because of procedural issues, such as missing a statute of limitations. It sounds simple but determining when the clock on a statute of limitations should begin to run is not always straightforward.”
A government claim submitted by Jones to the City of Los Angeles on July 22, 2019, was denied on September 6, 2019, and Jones subsequently filed his lawsuit against Los Angeles more than six months after the denial.
“We see nothing explaining why a complaint was never filed with the court over the next six months,” Clark told the Southern California Record. “Jones still had an opportunity to advance a breach of fiduciary duty claim or a fraudulent concealment claim against Paradis in December 2020. However, his claims against the City for either contractual interference or aiding and abetting probably would have expired in March 2020 or September 2020.”
As previously reported in the Southern California Record, the charges against Jones' first attorney, Paradis, emerged after an investigation into the city’s management of the utility’s billing system, and Paradis admitted to Department of Justice allegations that he accepted money in exchange for supporting a $30 million, no-bid contract with DWP.
“It’s always hard to prosecute allegations of collusion, and the California Business and Professional Code only provides a very limited criminal penalty,” Clark said. “A plaintiff would need to forward an underlying claim, such as fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, or legal malpractice, each of which would have its own substantive and procedural requirements.”
Jones’ lawsuit alleges that Paradis simultaneously represented him and the City of Los Angeles while secretly engineering a reverse auction to settle the case in terms favorable to the City with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle finding that Paradis was directed to do so by the City.
“The federal judge’s dismissal concerns more mundane procedural questions regarding the role of statutes of limitations,” Clark added.
Jones filed a notice of appeal on June 17 and his appeal brief is due to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal on September 26.