City attorney says the claim that it encouraged resident Wade Major’s suit against Ozzie Silna is absurd.
By Jonathan Friedman/Staff Writer
Abraham M. Rudy, attorney for Malibu CAN activist Ozzie Silna, said he believes the city might be working in collaboration with property rights advocate Wade Major in litigation against his client. Rudy said this in a telephone interview Monday, just days after Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Terry Friedman rejected Silna’s attempt to collect attorney fees from what Silna said was a frivolous lawsuit filed against him during the 2004 City Council election campaign.
Rudy said Major’s choice of representation after Silna motioned for attorney fees, the law firm, Richards, Watson and Gershon, created too many coincidences, one of them being that City Attorney Christi Hogin used to work there.
“My personal belief is that this is no mere coincidence,” Rudy said. “And whether it is because they [Richards Watson] were asked to do it by the city, or if the city is paying for their services or they are doing it pro bono to ingratiate the city, it is inconceivable that Wade just happened to fall onto these people at the 11th hour when all looked grim.”
Major, who could not be reached for comment, had hired the firm late last month. He had different representation during the election campaign in March when he attempted to get a temporary restraining order against Silna, which would have prevented him from making independent expenditures to campaign for the candidates he supported. Major had alleged that Silna was an agent for two of the candidates, and therefore was limited to spending no more than the $100 allowed by city law. Judge Friedman ruled against Major.
When Silna motioned to collect attorney fees, Major at first kept the same representation, but later switched over to what Rudy called a significant and expensive firm that specializes in municipal law. Rudy added that he and Silna believe it was by the city’s recommendation because it felt exposed by the suit, since he says the city made its own attempts to violate Silna’s rights.
Silna wrote in a statement, “It is my firm opinion that Major was aided and abetted in this attack on my right to free speech by the City Council and the independent election monitor they hired to oversee the election.”
Silna had several conflicts with the monitor, Xandra Kayden, during the campaign.
Hogin said the idea that the city had anything to do with Major’s suit was absurd. She said the law firm Richards Watson had called her to make sure there was no conflict with representing Major because it has previously represented the city in cases, and she told the firm there was no conflict, since the case did not directly involve the city. But she said that was the extent of her affiliation with the suit.
“It’s outrageous he [Rudy] would levy such accusations without a shred of evidence to support it,” Hogin said. “In fact, there is no truth behind the accusation. The city has nothing to do with it. I don’t think the city was exposed at all. I wasn’t concerned about this case in the least bit. Wade Major acted on his own. It didn’t have anything to do with the city.”
Rudy admitted it would be difficult or even impossible to prove what is currently just his opinion, but he questioned why, if Major wanted to hire an elite municipal law firm like Richards Watson, he did not do so from the beginning.
Friedman said in his ruling last Thursday when he rejected Silna’s attempt to seek attorney fees that Major had the right to file the suit in March, and rejected the idea that it was malicious prosecution.
“Just because I ruled against Major [in March] and said he did not have enough evidence to make his claim, doesn’t mean he is precluded from pursuing a remedy to enforce a local election campaign finance law,” Friedman said.
As of Tuesday afternoon, Silna had not specified whether he would appeal the decision. But Rudy released a statement that day saying, “We are continuing the process of fine tuning and implementing a global course of legal action concerning, among others, Wade Major and addressing, among other things, the issue of Mr. Major’s frivolous and ill-advised lawsuit and the purported bases therefore. Accordingly, Mr. Silna is weighing various courses of legal activity, including, among other actions, an appeal of the fee decision.”