Page 1
Appeals Court Says ALADS Entitled to $7.8 Million Award
Opinion Declares That Association Had Standing to Seek Recompense for Deputies Based on 140-Day Delay in Pay Hike While Ousted President Contended He Was Still in Power, Stalling Negotiations With County
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs was entitled to a $7.8 million award against its ousted president and a cohort who, by falsely claiming to hold the leadership reins and creating confusion as to who was in charge caused a 140-day delay in the formulation of new memorandum of understanding with the county providing for a pay hike, the Court of Appeal for this district declared on Friday.
Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes wrote for Div. Eight in rejecting the view of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Victor Chavez, since deceased, that the association—known as “ALADS”—lacked standing to sue over the deputies’ losses. The judge did award $75,190.98, based on various categories of direct losses to ALADS, and costs totaling $51,615.85.
Grimes’s opinion orders that the judgment be amended to change the award of damages to $7,813,833—based on a $55,813.00 per day cumulative loss to deputies—minus $158.31 for time spent by ALADS’s executive director and a consultant in stopping payment on a blank check, for which the jurist found the evidence to be lacking. The check was provided by an intimidated accountant upon demand of Armando Macias, who had been removed as president by ALADS’s board after it was uncovered that his shoddy attendance record as a trustee had rendered him ineligible for election, under the bylaws, and John Nance, the acting president.
The defendants also took $100,000 from the political action committee (PAC) fund to pay for services of a law firm, Baute Crochetiere & Gilford LLP.
Advice From Ipsen
In proclaiming that the ouster of Macias was ultra vires and that Macias remained president, the defendants acted on the advice of a lawyer outside that firm, Steven Ipsen. Grimes noted that Ipsen is “a former deputy district attorney and whose expertise was criminal law.”
Ipsen, who ran unsuccessfully for the post of district attorney in 2008 and was highly controversial as president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, was fired by then-District Attorney Steve Cooley in 2012, an action Ipsen unsuccessfully appealed. In connection with the dispute over the leadership of the deputy sheriffs’ group, he purported to act as ALADS’s general counsel. On April 2, 2014, the Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order (which became a preliminary injunction on May 6) which provided:
“Steven J. Ipsen is enjoined from entering ALADS’s headquarters…and Mr. Ipsen shall immediately turn over to ALADS’s President, Jeffrey Steck, any and all keys, pass cards, key fobs, or similar access devices to said property.
“The Baute Crochetiere & Gilford LLP law firm is ordered to immediately return to ALADS the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in ALADS funds that it possesses in its trust account.”
The law firm returned the money on April 3.
Grimes’s Opinion
Chavez found that deputies did incur a loss of $7.8 million by virtue of the defendants’ conduct, but disallowed damages because ALADS did not bring a class action. Grimes said that “[t]he class action analysis the court used is not the proper test for associational standing.”
She quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission as saying:
“[A]n association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.”
Grimes noted:
“California courts have used the same test.”
The defendants argued on appeal that the third requirement under Hunt was not met, insisting that individual testimony by deputies was necessary and, in lieu of that, ALADS presented expert testimony on damages.
Argument Rejected
The contention prompted this response from Grimes:
“Defendants now tell us ALADS cannot ‘use a formula presented through the testimony of a valuation expert to avoid the third prong of the Hunt test.’ We are dumbfounded by this. The short answer to defendants is, that ship already sailed. Defendants made no objection at any time before closing argument to ALADS’s proof in support of the relief requested on behalf of its individual members, and defendants do not claim on appeal there is no substantial evidence to support the award of $7.8 million in lost compensation. By the time the trial had proceeded to closing argument, it was far too late—and it remains far too late—for defendants to say ALADS cannot do what it has already done.
“Defendants cite a raft of federal and sister state cases which they say establish an association can never seek damages on behalf of its members. We find it incongruous to engage in an extended discussion of any of those cases, since none of them, of course, found an association lacked standing to prove damages that the association had already proved after a trial without individual testimony.”
The case is Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Macias, 2021 S.O.S. 1851.
James M. Kilkowski and Tristan F. Mackprang of the Century City law firm of Coleman Frost and Gerald M. Serlin and Judith E. Posner of the Woodland Hills firm of Benedon & Serlin represented ALADS. Donald R. Hall acted for the defendants.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company