A longstanding legal battle between a township council and a city council over alleged violations of open meeting laws has reached a critical juncture. The Malibu Township Council, Inc. (MTC) filed a complaint against the City Council of the City of Malibu in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on August 30, 2024, alleging that the City Council violated the Ralph M. Brown Act during a December 2012 meeting.
The case stems from events in 2009 when the City of Malibu sued the California Coastal Commission and other entities over proposed amendments to its local coastal plan. This lawsuit, known as the "Override Lawsuit," saw various legal twists and turns until May 2012 when an appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision favoring Malibu. In April 2013, MTC initiated litigation against both the City and its Council, challenging several actions including a land swap proposal involving Charmlee Wilderness Park and Malibu Bluffs Park.
Central to MTC's claims are allegations that during a December 10, 2012 meeting, the City Council discussed and approved an attorney fee settlement related to the Override Lawsuit in closed session without proper public notice or justification for avoiding open session discussion. According to MTC, this action violated multiple provisions of the Brown Act designed to ensure transparency in government proceedings.
The City's defense hinged on procedural nuances and interpretations of immediate need exceptions under the Brown Act. They argued that due to tight deadlines imposed by upcoming meetings with other involved parties and litigation timelines, there was an urgent need to discuss settlement offers received after posting their agenda. The trial court initially granted summary adjudication on some points but left others for trial.
At trial, evidence presented included minutes from the December 10 meeting indicating that City Attorney Christi Hogin informed council members about receiving a settlement offer post-agenda posting and advised immediate action due to impending deadlines. However, video footage contradicted parts of these minutes regarding open session announcements before recessing into closed session.
Despite these discrepancies, substantial evidence supported findings that procedural requirements were met under immediate need exceptions. The court found credible testimony from Hogin explaining her actions and determined no public members were present at relevant times—thereby validating procedural compliance despite location-based access challenges raised by MTC.
Ultimately seeking declaratory relief rather than injunctive measures (deemed moot due to subsequent procedural changes by Malibu), MTC’s broader arguments about inadequate public notice did not convince judges overseeing different phases of this complex case.
Attorneys involved include Frank P. Angel representing MTC while Scott W. Ditfurth defended Malibu alongside Gregg W Kettles from Best Best & Krieger LLP firm before Judges James C Chalfant & Holly J Fujie presiding over case ID B321688/BS142420 respectively affirming lower court rulings favoring defendants’ adherence albeit narrowly within statutory bounds governing municipal transparency mandates like those embodied within California’s venerable yet intricate Ralph M Brown Act framework