The legal fight between Port Hueneme Police Chief Michael Federico and City Councilwoman Laura Hernandez ended last year, but now the city and its taxpayers have been dragged in, as Federico seeks city reimbursement for his legal costs.
Hernandez sued Federico in July in small claims court for defamation, and Federico responded the next month with a lawsuit of his own for invasion of privacy and doxing because Hernandez had included his home address in a public court filing.
Hernandez’s lawsuit was dismissed from small claims court weeks after it was filed, and Federico dropped his lawsuit in October. At Federico’s request, the court removed the document with his address from its website and re-posted it with the address removed.
Federico is now asking the city to pay about $39,000 in his legal fees from the two lawsuits, according to a legal claim he filed with the city on April 8. The city has so far refused to pay. If it does not pay the claim, Federico could sue for the money.
Story continues below
Federico spent about $83,000 total on the two cases, according to emails from Tristan Mackprang, Federico’s lawyer, to Port Hueneme City Attorney Paul Early. The Star obtained the emails from the city under the California Public Records Act.
The California Joint Powers Authority, an insurance cooperative of cities and other local governments, paid about $45,000 of Federico’s legal bills and refused to pay the rest, Mackprang said in a December email to Early.
On March 16, the Port Hueneme City Council decided in a closed session not to pay the $39,000 Federico is asking for, Early said in an email to Mackprang.
Hernandez recused herself and was not present for the closed session due to conflict of interest rules. State law allows city councils to hold closed-door meetings for certain purposes, including discussions of actual and threatened lawsuits.
Early declined to comment, and Federico and Mackprang did not respond to requests for an interview.
Federico’s suit was ‘integral’ to his defense, lawyer says
In Federico’s claim for payment from the city, Mackprang argues that the city was legally obligated to pay all of Federico’s costs stemming from Hernandez’s lawsuit, including the lawsuit Federico filed in response. He cites a provision of California’s Government Code that requires public agencies to “provide for defense of any civil action or proceeding” brought against an employee for any “act or omission in the scope of his employment as an employee of the public entity.”
Hernandez’s lawsuit against Federico was related to his employment, Mackprang wrote, because she accused him of defaming her in ways related to his job. Among other claims, she said Federico was spreading false rumors that she interfered with his employment as police chief and with the department’s criminal investigations, that she created a hostile work environment at City Hall, and that she improperly disclosed confidential law enforcement matters.
Early, Port Hueneme’s city attorney, countered in an email to Mackprang that the city should not be on the hook for the second lawsuit, because in that case, Federico was the one who chose to sue.
In the claim, Mackprang states that the lawsuit Federico filed was “an integral part of his defense” against Hernandez’s defamation suit. Federico’s lawsuit was also necessary, Mackprang wrote, to ask the court to remove Federico’s home address from Hernandez’s complaint.
The city is also disputing the rates Mackprang is seeking for his services. The Joint Powers Insurance Authority agreed to pay for Federico’s defense at $275 an hour, which was the basis for its $45,000 in payments.
Mackprang, though, submitted an invoice to the city in October seeking $495 an hour for work he did himself and $395 an hour for work done by a paralegal at his firm. Mackprang billed for 114 of his own hours for the cases and 66 hours of the paralegal’s time, for a total of $83,439.
In a Jan. 10 email to Early, Mackprang said he never agreed to work for $275 an hour and said it is “simply not a reasonable rate for this work for an attorney of my experience.” He said he was ignored when he raised the pay issue several times with the insurance company that processes claims for the Joint Powers Insurance Authority.
In a Jan. 15 reply to Mackprang, Early wrote that $275 an hour is the JPIA’s standard rate.
“The fact that your client desired to hire more expensive counsel is not something the city is willing or able to compensate you for,” Early wrote.
Hernandez said she spent about $5K
At either $275 or $495 an hour, Federico’s legal representation was many times more expensive than Hernandez’s.
Hernandez said she paid an attorney about $5,000 to help her prepare her small claims case. The lawyer did not appear with her in court; Mackprang, on the other hand, did accompany Federico to small claims court on Aug. 21.
During that hearing, the judge told Federico that his lawyer could not speak on his behalf in small claims court.
Small claims court is meant to be cheaper and more accessible than Superior Court and to deal with smaller, simpler cases. The parties are free to consult with lawyers, but they may not have lawyers represent them in court. Damages are capped at $12,500, which is what Hernandez asked for in her lawsuit.
Hernandez said Federico’s legal expenses for a case in which the most he could have lost was $12,500 “sounds excessive to me.”
“I think it’s disappointing that he would try to pursue reimbursement either through the city or the JPIA, since it was his decision to countersue me,” she said.
Though payments from the JPIA don’t come directly out of the city’s bank account, Hernandez said they still ultimately fall on taxpayers. That’s because the authority is funded by its member agencies, and cities that have a lot of claims will see their rates go up.
Hernandez said she was interviewed by a detective with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office about the doxing claim but was later told she would not be criminally prosecuted. Hernandez said she thinks “that, too, was a waste of taxpayer money.”
Last year, when Hernandez and Federico were suing each other, The Star spoke with two law professors and one First Amendment lawyer about the cases. All three said Federico’s anti-doxing suit would be an uphill battle. California’s anti-doxing law is new and relatively untested, and court filings are generally exempt from legal liability.
Beyond that, Federico would have had to prove that Hernandez intended to put him or his family in danger by filing her complaint with his home address. Hernandez denied that, and said she had no problem with the court removing the document from its website and re-posting it without the address.
The experts contacted by The Star also said Hernandez’s small claims suit would have been difficult to win. The bar for a defamation claim by a public figure like a city council member is very high. Hernandez would have had to prove that the statements about her were false, and that Federico made them with “actual malice,” which means he either knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Tony Biasotti is an investigative and watchdog reporter for the Ventura County Star. Reach him at tbiasotti@vcstar.com. This story was made possible by a grant from the Ventura County Community Foundation’s Fund to Support Local Journalism.
This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Hueneme chief wants city to pay $39K in suit against council member
Reporting by Tony Biasotti, Ventura County Star / Ventura County Star
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
