Ron Davis -- Through My Eyes

You may have heard about the litigation filed by the majority owner of

the Bolsa Chica mesa, Signal Landmark, against the activist environmental

group, the Amigos de Bolsa Chica.

The legal action arises out of a confidential settlement agreement

entered into in 1989 resolving a 10-year legal battle.

In its pleadings, Signal alleges that under this settlement agreement

the Amigos had agreed to support “future development of Bolsa Chica,” but

breached the agreement when they “failed to support the development at

Bolsa Chica, and instead, after receiving the $1.2-million settlement

payment, actively worked to defeat the development.”

In my view, Signal understood that by tying the phrase “confidential

agreement” with the settlement payment of $1.2 million and a alleged

commitment by the Amigos to support “the development at Bolsa Chica,”

many people would interpret the transaction as nothing more than a bribe

-- a $1.2 million payoff to the Amigos to support whatever Signal wanted.

It is fair to ask why the Amigos would do such a thing. Well, the

short answer is that they really didn’t. The settlement agreement says

nothing about supporting “the development at Bolsa Chica,” but required

the Amigos to support something called the “Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan.”

It should surprise no one that the Amigos would support this

conceptual plan, whether confidential or not, since it was this very

conceptual plan they worked so hard to achieve. But the plan was more

than just conceptual, it contemplated, among other things, that the plan

would be produced by a coalition, including the city of Huntington Beach,

as one of the coalition members.

Signal, in the early ‘90s, precluded the city’s involvement and

eliminated Huntington Beach as a coalition partner by insisting the city

had no jurisdiction and opted to process its plan through the county of

Orange.

I don’t want to get into legal subtleties, but you have to understand

that when lawyers call out a specific plan to be supported, like a

“Coalition” plan, in my mind that’s the plan, not some other plan that is

similar to that plan, or smells like that plan, or is even better than

that plan, but only something called a “Coalition” plan produced by the

coalition as it existed in 1989.

And if, after 11 long years, Signal submits something else for

approval that is neither the product of the coalition, nor something

called a “Coalition” plan, then the Amigos are legitimately off the hook.

And, in my mind, that is exactly what happened.

So, inquiring minds may want to know, if what I say is accurate, why

did Signal take legal action against the Amigos.

In my experience, it is not unusual to watch years of animosity and

litigation replace reason with rancor and vindictiveness. Sometimes

lawsuits are more about getting even or embarrassment than they ever are

about justice. And in my judgment, this is one of them.

I find it a legal curiosity when the theory of a lawsuit is that the

Amigos failed to tell the public or a commission that the development

plans for the mesa ought to be approved, when they felt otherwise.

I’ll take the liberty of characterizing the thrust of this lawsuit as,

we (Signal) have paid you (Amigos) to represent something you don’t

believe is true and now it’s time for you to lie for us.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that Signal knew that not

only had they not submitted a “Coalition” plan, but knew that they never

could.

Thus, they were confronted with the unhappy prospect that the Amigos

were free to oppose whatever plan, other than a Coalition Plan, Signal

proposed. Given the high credibility of the Amigos in the community and

before various public bodies, it is arguable that Signal filed this

lawsuit in an effort to negatively affect the Amigos’ credibility.

And what better way than to smear them with the innuendo and suspicion

that they had been bought?

In my view, Signal’s litigation against the California Coastal

Commission, questioning whether the ruling amounted to a legal taking, is

a fair and legitimate issue to litigate. In fact, the United States

Supreme Court will be rendering a decision on the complicated subject of

takings in the next few months.

But, and this is my opinion again, Signal’s legal action against the

Amigos is also a taking -- the taking of unwarranted legal action for the

wrong reasons, and does nothing more than tear down the fence which

divides this community and replaces it with the equivalent of the Great

Wall of China.

Signal should be reminded of that old Chinese proverb, or maybe it’s

just my old proverb, which says: When you build a thicker wall, you build

a heavier door, which makes the door much more difficult to open.

* RON DAVIS is a private attorney who lives in Huntington Beach. He

can be reached by e-mail at o7 [email protected]