Dateline Commerce — In a wide-ranging, analytical, and hard-hitting decision, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson slammed three Commerce City Council members and City Atty. Eddie Olivo for filing a quo warranto action in 2015 to remove Hugo Argumedo from his Commerce City Council seat.
Judge Johnson also called into question a letter written by Mr. Olivo and attorney Bradley Pierce, while also questioning the County District Attorney’s investigation and conviction of Mr. Argumedo.
Sources have told Hews Media Group-Community News that the lawsuit cost the city well over $150,000 in attorney’s fees going to Mr. Olivo and his firm.
We reported exclusively one year ago that the city of Commerce had filed a Quo Warranto action, spearheaded by Commerce Councilmembers Tina Baca del Rio, Ivan Altamirano, Lelia Leon and Oralia Rebollo, a thinly veiled attempt to retain their voting power over the Council.
Based on the documents submitted by Mr. Olivo and Ms. Baca del Rio, then-state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris, in a very questionable ruling, granted the city “leave to sue” Mr. Argumedo on Nov. 9, 2015.
Mr. Olivo and Ms. Baca del Rio claimed that a sworn declaration signed by Mr. Argumedo in 2005 constituted “malfeasance in office” and that he should be removed from his Council seat.
The Declaration
In 2005, after Mr. Olivo had taken over as city attorney, former City Atty. attorney Francisco Leal was forced to file a lawsuit for unpaid fees.
After months of legal wrangling, a superior court judge ordered the parties into a mandatory settlement conference before Judge Kenneth Freeman in September 2006.
Mr. Leal and his attorney attended the conference as well as Mr. Olivo and then- Commerce Mayor Nancy Ramos.
Over a period of three days they hammered out an agreement with Judge Freeman ordering – and making it very clear – that Mr. Olivo and Ms. Ramos “should present the document to the Commerce Council as a settlement agreement.”
In September 2006, the Council met in closed session but both Mr. Olivo and Ms. Ramos, according to handwritten notes taken by the city clerk and submitted as evidence, called it a settlement proposal, and never advised the Council that they had reached a settlement agreement, pending the Council’s approval.
Both Mr. Argumedo and Ms. Baca del Rio later testified under oath that Mr. Olivo and Ms. Ramos presented the settlement but “didn’t support it.”
Judge Johnson said as much in his decision: “…but that is not what happened at the closed session meeting. Olivo and Ramos did not present the settlement as a firm commitment, did not express their personal support for the settlement, and did not tell the Council members that Judge Freeman recommended the settlement.”
Mr. Olivo returned to court, reported to the judge and Mr. Leal that the Council had rejected the settlement, and demanded more money from Mr. Leal to settle the case.
Mr. Leal was deceived into paying $70,000 instead of paying $20,000 as previously agreed, with the new agreement providing for monthly installments.
Included in the agreement was an oppressive default provision calling for 10 percent per month on the unpaid balance.
Months later, in a move any first year lawyer would have seen coming, Mr. Leal refused to pay citing the fact that Messrs. Olivo and Ramos did not present or support the conference agreement as a settlement.
Mr. Leal then produced declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, from Mr. Argumedo and then Councilwoman Rosalina Lopez, both stating, and backed up by Ms. Baca del Rio’s statement, that Mayor Ramos and Mr. Olivo presented the agreement as an offer not as a settlement.
After the presentation of evidence and several legal maneuvers by both sides, Judge Johnson handed down his ruling.
That is when Mr. Johnson slammed the city and Mr. Olivo.
“The city contends it has proven that Argumedo engaged in morally corrupt or dishonest conduct that constitutes malfeasance in office through the elements of the crime, the records of the criminal proceeding, and the evidence presented at trial.
“The Court has examined each of these areas, and it has concluded that the City has not established morally corrupt or dishonest conduct by Argumedo.”
The judge did find Mr. Argumedo “careless and inattentive” but did not find him guilty of any criminal conduct.
This story originally appeared at www.loscerritosnews.net
