| | | | | | | |  | CITY OF BELL GARDENS
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
AGENDA REPORT
Item 9. |
|
| | | | | | | | | TO: | Honorable Mayor and City Council Members | | FROM: | Michael B. O'Kelly, City Manager | | BY: | Gary A. Bacio, Esq., Bacio and Associates
Michael B. O'Kelly, City Manager | | SUBJECT: | CITY OF BELL GARDENS, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY, V. JENNIFER RODRIGUEZ, CASE NO. 20STCV38848 | | DATE: | September 26, 2022 |
|
| | | | | | | | RECOMMENDATION:
It is staff's recommendation that the City Council by motion receive and file this report and provide further direction regarding collection of the judgment amount. |
|
| | | | | | | | BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Former Councilmember, Jennifer Rodriguez, failed to attend 60 days of council meetings on separate occasions between June 2016 and February 2017 without approval or a valid excuse. This was in breach of her duties as a councilmember and a violation of Government Code section 36513. An action, called Quo Warranto, with the approval of the State Attorney General, was brought against Ms. Rodriguez on February 15, 2018.
That matter went to trial on September 9, 2019 and was concluded on September 12, 2019. The court found in favor of the city and ruled that Ms. Rodriguez could no longer serve as a councilmember as she had violated her duty to the city by failing to attend council meetings without approval or valid excuse.
During her absences the city paid Ms. Rodriguez, in salary and benefits, $14,995.26 for the period of July 26, 2016, to September 26, 2016, and $13,924.19 for the period of November 22, 2016, to February 13, 2017. Further, Ms. Rodriguez failed to return a city iPad with a value of $646.65. This resulted in a second lawsuit brought against her to recover these payouts.
The timeline for this second litigation is below:
1. October 13, 2020: A lawsuit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, Unjust Enrichment, and Fraud in the inducement was be prepared and filed against Ms. Rodriguez.
2. January 12, 2021: After many attempts to serve Ms. Rodriguez and due to her evading service, substituted service was successful.
3. Thereafter, Ms. Rodriguez failed to file a timely answer to the complaint.
4. February 8, 2022: Default was entered against Ms. Rodriguez.
5. February 9, 2022: Default Judgment was entered by the court in the amount of $29,979.35.
6. May 18, 2022: Abstract of Judgment filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder.
The judgment is valid for ten years and can thereafter be renewed for another ten years. A wage garnishment is the most typical way of collecting on the judgment.
The Abstract of Judgment filed with the County recorder allows for creditors to be placed on notice that prior to approving credit, the judgment needs to be satisfied. This is typical when an individual attempts to buy, sell or refinance real property.
|
|
| | | | | | | | CONCLUSION:
The Abstract of Judgment filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder in the amount of $29,979.35 remains outstanding. The judgment would typically be satisfied if the judgment debtor, Jennifer Rodriguez, attempts to sell of refinance real property. It is valid for ten years with an additional ten year renewal period.
|
|
| | | | | | | | FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no current fiscal impact until such time as the $29,979.35 judgment is satisfied through partial or full payment. Any payment received from the judgment would be recognized as revenues to the City's General Fund and become available for services.
|
|
| | | | | | | | APPROVED ELECTRONICALLY BY:
Michael B. O'Kelly, City Manager
Stephanie Vasquez, Assistant City Attorney for Rick R. Olivarez, City Attorney
Manuel Carrillo, Director of Finance and Administrative Services
|
|