HomeMy WebLinkAboutE-9 Staff Report - Police Special Legal CounselCONSENT ITEM
E-9
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SERGIO GONZALES, CITY MANAGER
ROCKY WENRICK, CHIEF OF POLICE
JANUARY 21, 2025
APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LYNBERG AND
WATKINS FOR SPECIAL LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND:
The Police Department requires special legal counsel on law enforcement matters and therefore,
requesting approval for attorney services with Lynberg and Watkins. The proposed action approves
a Professional Services Agreement with Lynberg and Watkins for legal counsel services.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Staff recommends the City Council take the following action:
1. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with the law firm Lynberg and Watkins, for Legal
Counsel Services in Police Matters from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2027 with the
option for two, one (1) year extensions, in an amount not to exceed $100,000 annually;
2.Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, on
behalf of the City, and waive the competitive bidding process as authorized under Azusa
Municipal Code Section 2-517(14) – Attorney Services; and
3.Authorize the City Manager to exercise options for extensions to the contract as necessary, and
execute extensions in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, on behalf of the City.
ANALYSIS:
A Request for Proposals process was authorized by the City Council April 1, 2024, to seek highly
specialized legal services for law enforcement matters, including disciplinary matters involving sworn
personnel and conduct thorough independent administrative investigations.
Approved
City Council
January 21, 2025
PSA for Special Legal Counsel
January 21, 2025
Page 3
Lynberg and Watkins was found to be a qualified firm, offering public entities representation with an
emphasis on law enforcement related matters. The Agreement allows the Azusa Police Department to
utilize the services of Lynberg and Watkins as needed.
Administrative investigations oftentimes involve sensitive matters, including but not limited to, officer-
involved shootings, use of force, false arrest, and criminal misconduct. Although future legal fees are
difficult to estimate, the ability to have legal counsel available to commence investigation within statutory
timelines is critical. Special legal fees are included in the department annual budget.
FISCAL IMPACT:
These services are included in the fiscal year (FY2024-25) approved budgeted under the Police
Department account 10-20-310-000-6301- Legal Fees – Not to exceed $100,000 annually and from
budget savings.
Prepared by:
Robert Landeros
Police Captain
Reviewed and Approved:
Sergio Gonzalez
City Manager
Reviewed and approved:
Rocky Wenrick
Chief of Police
Attachments:
1) Professional Services Agreement with Lynberg and Watkins (Draft)
2) Legal Counsel Services Proposal from Lynberg and Watkins.
8513273_1
CITY OF AZUSA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this ____ day of ________________, 20___ by
and between the City of Azusa, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of
California with its principal place of business at 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California
91702 (“City”) and Lynberg and Watkins with its principal place of business at 1150 S. Olive
Street Eighteenth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90015 (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are
sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant.
Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain
professional services required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing LEGAL SERVICES to public clients, is
licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of City.
2.2 Project.
City desires to engage Consultant to render such services for the LEGAL SERVICES project
(“Project”) as set forth in this Agreement.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Scope of Services and Term.
3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to
the City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work
necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional legal services necessary for the Project
(“Services”). The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance
with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all
applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2025 to
December 31, 2027 with the option of two (2) one (1) year extensions, unless earlier terminated as
provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and
shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The Parties may, by mutual written
consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Services.
3.2 Responsibilities of Consultant.
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 2 of 16
8513273_1
3.2.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The
Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the
means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this
Agreement. City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee.
Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of
this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf
of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant’s
exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due
such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as
required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such
additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding,
unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance.
3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously,
within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in
Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it
has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with
such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant’s conformance with the Schedule, City shall
respond to Consultant’s submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of City, Consultant shall
provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services.
3.2.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall be subject to the approval of City.
3.2.4 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to City that
certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one
or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at
least equal competence upon written approval of City. In the event that City and Consultant cannot
agree as to the substitution of key personnel, City shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for
cause. As discussed below, any personnel who fail or refuse to perform the Services in a manner
acceptable to the City, or who are determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a
threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or
property, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant at the request of the City.
The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: : S. Frank Harrell, Managing
Partner.
.
3.2.5 City’s Representative. The City hereby designates Rocky Wenrick, Chief
of Police, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement
(“City’s Representative”). City’s Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the City
for all purposes under this Contract. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any
person other than the City’s Representative or his or her designee.
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 3 of 16
8513273_1
3.2.6 Consultant’s Representative. Consultant hereby designates S. Frank
Harrell, Managing Partner , or his/her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of
this Agreement (“Consultant’s Representative”). Consultant’s Representative shall have full
authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement.
The Consultant’s Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his/her best skill
and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and
procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this
Agreement.
3.2.7 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with City staff
in the performance of Services and shall be available to City’s staff, consultants and other staff at
all reasonable times.
3.2.8 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees. Consultant shall perform all
Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standards
generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of
California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling
necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall
have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant
represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and
approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, including a City
Business License, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of
this Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, Consultant
shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the City, any services
necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant’s failure to comply
with the standard of care provided for herein. Any employee of the Consultant or its sub-
consultants who is determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the
adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any
employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, shall be
promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any
of the Services or to work on the Project.
3.2.9 Period of Performance. Consultant shall perform and complete all Services
under this Agreement within the term set forth in Section 3.1.2 above (“Performance Time”).
Consultant shall also perform the Services in strict accordance with any completion schedule or
Project milestones described in Exhibits “A” or “B” attached hereto, or which may be separately
agreed upon in writing by the City and Consultant (“Performance Milestones”). Consultant agrees
that if the Services are not completed within the aforementioned Performance Time and/or
pursuant to any such Project Milestones developed pursuant to provisions of this Agreement, it is
understood, acknowledged and agreed that the City will suffer damage.
3.2.10 Laws and Regulations; Employee/Labor Certifications. Consultant shall
keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and
regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all
Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 4 of 16
8513273_1
all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs
any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written
notice to the City, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant
shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free
and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or
liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
3.2.10.1 Employment Eligibility; Consultant. By executing this
Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state
and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to,
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time. Such
requirements and restrictions include, but are not limited to, examination and retention of
documentation confirming the identity and immigration status of each employee of the Consultant.
Consultant also verifies that it has not committed a violation of any such law within the five (5)
years immediately preceding the date of execution of this Agreement, and shall not violate any
such law at any time during the term of the Agreement. Consultant shall avoid any violation of
any such law during the term of this Agreement by participating in an electronic verification of
work authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security, by
participating in an equivalent federal work authorization program operated by the United States
Department of Homeland Security to verify information of newly hired employees, or by some
other legally acceptable method. Consultant shall maintain records of each such verification, and
shall make them available to the City or its representatives for inspection and copy at any time
during normal business hours. The City shall not be responsible for any costs or expenses related
to Consultant’s compliance with the requirements provided for in Section 3.2.10 or any of its sub-
sections.
3.2.10.2 Employment Eligibility; Subcontractors, Consultants, Sub-
subcontractors and Subconsultants. To the same extent and under the same conditions as
Consultant, Consultant shall require all of its subcontractors, consultants, sub-subcontractors and
subconsultants performing any work relating to the Project or this Agreement to make the same
verifications and comply with all requirements and restrictions provided for in Section 3.2.10.1.
3.2.10.3 Employment Eligibility; Failure to Comply. Each person
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant verifies that they are a duly authorized officer
of Consultant, and understands that any of the following shall be grounds for the City to terminate
the Agreement for cause: (1) failure of Consultant or its subcontractors, consultants, sub-
subcontractors or subconsultants to meet any of the requirements provided for in Sections 3.2.10.1
or 3.2.10.2; (2) any misrepresentation or material omission concerning compliance with such
requirements (including in those verifications provided to the Consultant under Section 3.2.10.2);
or (3) failure to immediately remove from the Project any person found not to be in compliance
with such requirements.
3.2.10.4 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant
certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 5 of 16
8513273_1
self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.2.10.5 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that
it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subconsultant,
employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap,
ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities
related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of
City’s Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related programs
or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.
3.2.10.6 Air Quality. To the extent applicable, Consultant must fully
comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in furnishing or using equipment and/or
providing services, including, but not limited to, emissions limits and permitting requirements
imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and/or California Air
Resources Board (CARB). Although the SCAQMD and CARB limits and requirements are more
broad, Consultant shall specifically be aware of their application to "portable equipment", which
definition is considered by SCAQMD and CARB to include any item of equipment with a fuel-
powered engine. Consultant shall indemnify City against any fines or penalties imposed by
SCAQMD, CARB, or any other governmental or regulatory agency for violations of applicable
laws, rules and/or regulations by Consultant, its subconsultants, or others for whom Consultant is
responsible under its indemnity obligations provided for in this Agreement.
3.2.10.7 Water Quality.
(A) Management and Compliance. To the extent applicable,
Consultant’s Services must account for, and fully comply with, all local, state and federal laws,
rules and regulations that may impact water quality compliance, including, without limitation, all
applicable provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1300); the
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code §§ 13000-14950); laws,
rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control
Board and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board; the City’s ordinances regulating
discharges of storm water; and any and all regulations, policies, or permits issued pursuant to any
such authority regulating the discharge of pollutants, as that term is used in the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act, to any ground or surface water in the State.
(B) Liability for Non-compliance. Failure to comply with the
laws, regulations and policies described in this Section is a violation of law that may subject
Consultant or City to penalties, fines, or additional regulatory requirements. Consultant shall
defend, indemnify and hold the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and
agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from and
against any and all fines, penalties, claims or other regulatory requirements imposed as a result of
Consultant’s non-compliance with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section,
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 6 of 16
8513273_1
unless such non-compliance is the result of the sole established negligence, willful misconduct or
active negligence of the City, its officials, officers, agents, employees or authorized volunteers.
(C) Training. In addition to any other standard of care
requirements set forth in this Agreement, Consultant warrants that all employees and
subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them
without impacting water quality in violation of the laws, regulations and policies described in this
Section. Consultant further warrants that it, its employees and subcontractors will receive adequate
training, as determined by City, regarding the requirements of the laws, regulations and policies
described in this Section as they may relate to the Services provided under this Agreement. Upon
request, City will provide Consultant with a list of training programs that meet the requirements
of this paragraph.
3.2.11 Insurance.
3.2.11.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence
Services under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that it has
secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any
subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has provided evidence satisfactory to
the City that the subcontractor has secured all insurance required under this section.
3.2.11.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense,
procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance
for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels
of coverage:
(A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as
broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office
Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability:
Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and
(3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as
required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. The policy shall not
contain any exclusion contrary to the Agreement, including but not limited to endorsements or
provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability (including but not limited to ISO CG 24
26 or 21 29); or (2) cross liability for claims or suits by one insured against another.
(B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain
limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general
aggregate limit is used including, but not limited to, form CG 2503, either the general aggregate
limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice
the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 7 of 16
8513273_1
and property damage; (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’
Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer’s
Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. Defense costs shall be paid
in addition to the limits.
(C) Notices; Cancellation or Reduction of Coverage. At least
fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, evidence showing that such insurance
coverage has been renewed or extended shall be filed with the City. If such coverage is cancelled
or materially reduced, Consultant shall, within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice of such
cancellation or reduction of coverage, file with the City evidence of insurance showing that the
required insurance has been reinstated or has been provided through another insurance company
or companies. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply
with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, the City has the right but not the duty to
obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by the City will be promptly
reimbursed by Consultant or the City may withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from
Consultant payments. In the alternative, the City may suspend or terminate this Agreement.
3.2.11.3 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall
contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or
approved by the City to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:
(A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall include
or be endorsed (amended) to state that: (1) using ISO CG forms 20 10 and 20 37, or endorsements
providing the exact same coverage, the City of Azusa, its directors, officials, officers, employees,
agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insured with respect to the Services or ongoing
and complete operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or
equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) using ISO form 20 01, or endorsements
providing the exact same coverage, the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects
the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand
in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any
excess insurance shall contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and
noncontributory basis for the benefit of the City, before the City’s own primary insurance or self-
insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be
excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.
Notwithstanding the minimum limits set forth in Section 3.2.11.2(B), any available insurance
proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of coverage shall be available to the parties
required to be named as additional insureds pursuant to this Section 3.2.11.4(A).
(B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall
include or be endorsed (amended) to state that: (1) the City, its directors, officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the
ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 8 of 16
8513273_1
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess
of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained
by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of
the Consultant’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.
Notwithstanding the minimum limits set forth in Section 3.2.11.2(B), any available insurance
proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of coverage shall be available to the parties
required to be named as additional insureds pursuant to this Section 3.2.11.4(B).
(C) Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability
Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its directors,
officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers for losses paid under the terms of the
insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant.
(E) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this
Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced
or canceled except after thirty (30) days (10 days for nonpayment of premium) prior written notice
by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City; and (B) any failure to comply
with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect
coverage provided to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers.
Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of
warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents
and volunteers, or any other additional insureds.
3.2.11.5 Separation of Insureds; No Special Limitations; Waiver of
Subrogation. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds
provisions. In addition, such insurance shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers.
All policies shall waive any right of subrogation of the insurer against the City, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or any other additional insureds, or shall specifically
allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications
to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or any other additional
insureds, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its
subconsultants.
3.2.11.6 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles
or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. Consultant shall guarantee
that, at the option of the City, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or
self-insured retentions as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and
volunteers; or (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses.
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 9 of 16
8513273_1
3.2.11.7 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not
allow any subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract relating to the work under the
Agreement until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all
insurance required under this Section. If requested by Consultant, the City may approve different
scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subconsultants. The Consultant and the City
shall be named as additional insureds on all subconsultants’ policies of Commercial General
Liability using ISO form 20 38, or coverage at least as broad.
3.2.11.8 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California,
and satisfactory to the City.
3.2.11.9 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish City with
original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement
on forms satisfactory to the City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy
shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be
on forms provided by the City if requested. All certificates and endorsements must be received
and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
3.2.11.9 Reporting of Claims. Consultant shall report to the City, in
addition to Consultant’s insurer, any and all insurance claims submitted by Consultant in
connection with the Services under this Agreement.
3.2.12 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury
or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times
be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall
exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work
and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall
include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and lifesaving equipment and
procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as
safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures,
trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are
necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the
proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures.
3.2.13 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate
records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records
shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City during normal business
hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents
created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents,
proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date
of final payment under this Agreement.
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 10 of 16
8513273_1
3.3 Fees and Payments.
3.3.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including
authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in
Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall
not exceed Seventy Thousand ($70,000) annually without written approval of the City Council.
Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the
rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.3.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to City a monthly
itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant.
The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial
commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through
the date of the statement. City shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the
statement and pay all approved charges thereon.
3.3.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any
expenses unless authorized in writing by City.
3.3.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may
request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which
is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties
did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant
shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from City’s
Representative.
3.3.5 Prevailing Wages. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California
Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations,
Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing
wage rates and the performance of other requirements on “public works” and “maintenance”
projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or
“maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is
$1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. City shall
provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the
commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per
diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available
to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant’s principal place of
business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected
officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out
of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.4 Termination of Agreement.
3.4.1 Grounds for Termination. City may, by written notice to Consultant,
terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 11 of 16
8513273_1
notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven
(7) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be
compensated only for those services which have been adequately rendered to City, and Consultant
shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except
for cause.
3.4.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein,
City may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data and other
information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services
under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other
information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
3.4.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or
in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may
determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.
3.5 Ownership of Materials and Confidentiality.
3.5.1 Documents & Data; Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement
creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense
any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications,
studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible
medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or
otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”). All Documents & Data shall be and
remain the property of City, and shall not be used in whole or in substantial part by Consultant on
other projects without the City's express written permission. Within thirty (30) days following the
completion, suspension, abandonment or termination of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide
to City reproducible copies of all Documents & Data, in a form and amount required by City. City
reserves the right to select the method of document reproduction and to establish where the
reproduction will be accomplished. The reproduction expense shall be borne by City at the actual
cost of duplication. In the event of a dispute regarding the amount of compensation to which the
Consultant is entitled under the termination provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide
all Documents & Data to City upon payment of the undisputed amount. Consultant shall have no
right to retain or fail to provide to City any such documents pending resolution of the dispute. In
addition, Consultant shall retain copies of all Documents & Data on file for a minimum of fifteen
(15) years following completion of the Project, and shall make copies available to City upon the
payment of actual reasonable duplication costs. Before destroying the Documents & Data
following this retention period, Consultant shall make a reasonable effort to notify City and
provide City with the opportunity to obtain the documents.
3.5.2 Subcontractors. Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in
writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the
subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant
has the legal right to license any and all Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 12 of 16
8513273_1
representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design
professionals other than Consultant or its subcontractors, or those provided to Consultant by the
City.
3.5.3 Right to Use. City shall not be limited in any way in its use or reuse of the
Documents and Data or any part of them at any time for purposes of this Project or another project,
provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement or on a project
other than this Project without employing the services of Consultant shall be at City’s sole risk. If
City uses or reuses the Documents & Data on any project other than this Project, it shall remove
the Consultant’s seal from the Documents & Data and indemnify and hold harmless Consultant
and its officers, directors, agents and employees from claims arising out of the negligent use or re-
use of the Documents & Data on such other project. Consultant shall be responsible and liable for
its Documents & Data, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, only with respect to the condition
of the Documents & Data at the time they are provided to the City upon completion, suspension,
abandonment or termination. Consultant shall not be responsible or liable for any revisions to the
Documents & Data made by any party other than Consultant, a party for whom the Consultant is
legally responsible or liable, or anyone approved by the Consultant.
3.5.4 Confidentiality. All Documents & Data either created by or provided to
Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by
Consultant. All Documents & Data shall not, without the prior written consent of City, be used or
reproduced by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Consultant
shall not disclose, cause or facilitate the disclosure of the Documents & Data to any person or
entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to
Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known,
to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City’s name or
insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in
any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium
without the prior written consent of City.
3.6 General Provisions.
3.6.1 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement
shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the
respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
Consultant:
S. Frank Harrell
Managing Partner
Lynberg and Watkins
1150 S. Olive Street
Eighteenth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 13 of 16
8513273_1
City:
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
Attn: Rocky Wenrick, Chief of Police
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed,
forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to
the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual
notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.6.2 Indemnification.
3.6.2.1 Scope of Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law,
CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold harmless AGENCY and any and all of its officials,
employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities,
damages, costs and expenses, including legal counsel’s fees and costs, caused in whole or in part
by the negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of CONSULTANT, its officers, agents,
employees or sub consultants (or any agency or individual that CONSULTANT shall bear the legal
liability thereof) in the performance of services under this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT’s duty
to indemnify and hold harmless AGENCY shall not extend to the AGENCY’s sole or active
negligence.
3.6.2.2 Duty to Defend. In the event the AGENCY, its officers, employees,
agents and/or volunteers are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding
arising from the performance of the services encompassed by this AGREEMENT, and upon
demand by AGENCY, CONSULTANT shall defend the AGENCY at CONSULTANT’s cost or
at AGENCY’s option, to reimburse AGENCY for its costs of defense, including reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the defense of such matters to the extent the matters arise
from, relate to or are caused by CONSULTANT’s negligent acts, errors or omissions. Payment by
AGENCY is not a condition precedent to enforcement of this indemnity. In the event of any dispute
between CONSULTANT and AGENCY, as to whether liability arises from the sole or active
negligence of the AGENCY or its officers, employees, or agents, CONSULTANT will be
obligated to pay for AGENCY’s defense until such time as a final judgment has been entered
adjudicating the AGENCY as solely or actively negligent. CONSULTANT will not be entitled in
the absence of such a determination to any reimbursement of defense costs including but not
limited to attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs of litigation.
3.6.3 Governing Law; Government Code Claim Compliance. This Agreement
shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Los Angeles County.
In addition to any and all contract requirements pertaining to notices of and requests for
compensation or payment for extra work, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions,
Consultant must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code sections 900 et
seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against the City. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 14 of 16
8513273_1
lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain
unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, disputed work, claims, and/or changed
conditions have been followed by Consultant. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or
if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein,
Consultant shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a valid lawsuit against the City.
3.6.4 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of
this Agreement.
3.6.5 City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants. City reserves right to employ
other consultants in connection with this Project.
3.6.6 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors
and assigns of the parties.
3.6.7 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or
transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein without the
prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees,
hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted
assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.6.8 Construction; References; Captions. Since the Parties or their agents have
participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this Agreement shall be
construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party. Any term
referencing time, days or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not work days.
All references to Consultant include all personnel, employees, agents, and subcontractors of
Consultant, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to City include its
elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this
Agreement. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of
reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this
Agreement.
3.6.9 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment
of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties.
3.6.10 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other
default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit,
privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any
contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.
3.6.11 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except to the extent expressly provided for
in Section 3.6.7, there are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed
by the Parties.
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 15 of 16
8513273_1
3.6.12 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared
invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining
provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.6.13 Prohibited Interests. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not
employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely
for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not
paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working
solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Consultant further
agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or sub consultants to file, a Statement of Economic
Interest with the City’s Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the
Services. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this
Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of
City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this
Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.6.14 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one
another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary,
appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.6.15 Attorney’s Fees. If either party commences an action against the other
party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement,
the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party
reasonable attorney’s fees and all other costs of such action.
3.6.16 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and
authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party
warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and
authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.
3.6.17 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of
which shall constitute an original.
3.6.18 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations,
understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both
parties.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
Lynberg and Watkins - Legal Services
Page 16 of 16
8513273_1
CITY OF AZUSA Lynberg and Watkins
By: By:
Name:
Attest:
Title:
City Clerk
[If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES,
President OR Vice President AND Secretary,
AND CORPORATE SEAL OF
CONTRACTOR REQUIRED]
Approved as to Form:
Best Best & Krieger LLP By:
Name:
City Attorney
Title:
A-1
8513273_1
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
REFER TO ATTACHED SCOPE OF SERVICES
B-1
8513273_1
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
REFER TO ATTACHED PROPOSAL
C-1
8513273_1
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
REFER TO ATTACHED PROPOSAL
Lynberg & Watkins’ Response to City of Azusa’s Request for Proposals —
Use of Force, Personnel, Labor & Employment Legal Servicecs and
Internal Affairs Investigations
Submitted
May 2, 2024
1
LOS ANGELES
1150 S. Olive Street
Eighteenth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Tel 213-624-8700
Fax 213-892-2763
ORANGE COUNTY
1100 Town & Country Road
Suite #1450
Orange, CA 92868
Tel 714-937-1010
Fax 714 937-1003
SAN DIEGO
185 West F Street
4th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel 619-814-2169
Fax 619-356-4968
REPLY TO: ORANGE
Captain Robert Landeros
Azusa Police Department
CITY OF AZUSA
213 East Foothill Boulevard,
Azusa, CA 91702
Re: City of Azusa’s Request for Proposals—Use of
Force, Personnel, Labor & Employment Legal
Servicecs and Internal Affairs Investigations
Dear Captain Landeros:
It is our pleasure to submit Lynberg & Watkins’ response to the City
of Azusa’s April 2, 2024 Request for Proposals, Use of Force, Personnel,
Labor & Employment Legal Services and Internal Affairs Investigations
(“RFP”).
Lynberg & Watkins represents clients in a wide range of litigation,
including matters that raise issues at the intersection of law, public entities,
and public policy. Each of our practice areas is highly regarded, and our
lawyers are recognized for their commitment to the representation of our
clients’ interests. All of our attorneys are litigators, and we have extensive
experience before trial and appellate courts in California, other states and
in the federal judicial system. Our clients include public entities,
corporations and individuals.
Our governmental clients choose our firm to defend against lawsuits
raising a wide variety of allegations, including police liability and law
enforcement employment issues. Our experience litigating and winning
cases for our law enforcement clients spans over half a century and is
2
Re: Lynberg & Watkins’ response to the City of Azusa’s April 2, 2024
Request for Proposals, Use of Force, Personnel, Labor & Employment
Legal Services and Internal Affairs Investigations
May 2, 2024
distinguished with dozens of published opinions reflecting important
victories for public entities in cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the
federal Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, and by
California’s appellate courts.
We serve our clients’ interests through creative legal and factual
analysis and strategy coupled with skilled courtroom advocacy. Lynberg &
Watkins approaches every lawsuit it handles with the expectation that the
case will be tried. By developing case themes early, focusing our discovery
efforts on the key issues and demonstrating the ability and drive to take the
case to the courtroom, we put our clients in the best position to win —
whether at trial, on summary judgment or through a negotiated resolution.
Our public entity clients also benefit from the firm’s counseling
regarding their policies and procedures. The firm’s advice is designed to
both solve our clients’ existing litigation challenges and avoid potential
future litigation altogether.
It is our pleasure to submit this response to the City’s stated needs
and to emphasize our strong interest in representing your interests.
Very truly yours,
S. FRANK HARRELL
Managing Partner
LYNBERG & WATKINS
3
PRIOR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
Our goal is to be the firm of choice for our governmental clients,
including with respect to their most challenging legal issues and their most
critical disputes. And every one of us is here because we want to do
something that makes the world a better place – which includes standing
up for the members of our law enforcement community in our judicial
system. In line with this commitment, L&W’s attorneys have won
precedent-setting court victories for law enforcement in state and federal
courts. There are many illustrative examples:
-oo0oo-
Gillespie v. County of Orange, USDC Case No. 8:21-cv-00698-SSS-
(DFMx).
Plaintiff Jason Gillespie was pulled over for suspected driving while
impaired. According to Gillespie (and his girlfriend), Orange County
Sheriff’s Department deputies unlawfully beat and tased him in “retaliation”
for him simply questioning their conduct. Drug recognition experts called to
the scene were unable to establish any impairment. Gillespie stated that
the “trauma” associated with his “beating” exacerbated his mental
difficulties following his military service in Afghanistan. He claimed millions
of dollars in medical expenses, lost wages and “emotional trauma”.
The Orange County deputies stated that Gillespie charged at them
for “no reason” and that they only used the taser when their commands for
him to “stop” advancing went unheeded. As is often the case, therefore, the
lawsuit presented two completely different versions of events for the jury to
sort out.
The OCSD began laying the groundwork for a win during Gillespie’s
deposition. No direct video evidence of what happened existed. The parties
only had audio of the words spoken at the scene. The OCSD’s litigation
team, headed by S. Frank Harrell, therefore elicited Gillespie’s version
regarding who supposedly said what to whom. Many of the words Gillespie
claimed were spoken were not present on the incident audio recording.
4
Lynberg & Watkins’ Prior Experience & Qualifications
Other words present on the tape were flatly inconsistent with the events
which Gillespie described during his deposition.
Standing up for the deputies also meant, in practical terms,
aggressively testing every important aspect of Gillespie’s claims in
discovery – including Plaintiff’s claim to have distinguished himself through
military service in Afghanistan. As fate would have it, L&W’s investigation
of this claim revealed that Gillespie had never been to Afghanistan.
Gillespie also had never received the military decorations he claimed to
have earned. Indeed, investigation revealed that Plaintiff had not served in
the military at all.
Needless to say, Gillespie’s bumbling testimony rightly led to his swift
self-destruction on the witness stand at trial – with Gillespie finally
collapsing in tears and admitting that all of his military claims were just
something he said to “impress girls”. The jury members – including all the
female jurors – were plainly not impressed. They rendered a complete
defense judgment for the OCSD deputies. Orange County is now pursuing
its retaliatory rights against Gillespie for his demonstrably false testimony in
the case.
-oo0oo-
Baros v. Ramirez, USDC Case No. 17-cv-00948 WLH
L&W partner Shannon L. Gustafson served as lead trial counsel in
Baros – a claimed “traumatic brain injury” case venued in downtown Los
Angeles. The matter involved allegations by a former San Bernardino
County Jail inmate that deputies used “excessive force” against him during
an inmate melee.
The Deputy admitted to punching Plaintiff several times in the head.
However, Ms. Gustafson successfully argued that this force was necessary
given Plaintiff’s active resistance and the threat he posed to the security of
the facility. In particular, Ms. Gustafson skillfully utilized Jail video and
expert testimony to educate the jury on the many safety risks officers face
when they wear the badge. Ms. Gustafson also used the jail video to
methodically debunk the inmate’s many exaggerated factual claims.
5
Lynberg & Watkins’ Prior Experience & Qualifications
The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict after only a few hours
of deliberation – and did so in a venue not known for being overly-
sympathetic to law enforcement defendants. Also of note, the County
Sheriff’s Department’s liaison on risk management matters was the named
Deputy Defendant in the case. He gave Ms. Gustafson well-earned praise
for her work on the case.
-oo0oo-
Anderson v. County of Orange, OCSC Case No. No. 30-2010-
00376368
Orange County’s senior management chose a L&W trial team
headed up by S. Frank Harrell to defend the County’s Sheriff and
Undersheriff over allegations that they “conspired” to target certain other
OCSD management officials with termination in violation of POBOR. More
particularly, the peace officer Plaintiffs contended that they were targeted
for termination in violation of their political preferences. The Sheriff, by
contrast, contended that the job terminations in issue were necessary due
to budget constraints. The Plaintiffs sought over $20,000,000.00 in
compensatory damages.
But Plaintiffs lost the case after a month of trial which garnered front
page headlines across Southern California.1 Mr. Harrell successfully
argued that POBOR did not protect the Plaintiffs from budgetary layoffs,
and he methodically demonstrated the necessity of Plaintiffs’ terminations
through lively PowerPoint presentations which simplified, and underscored
the County’s budgetary evidence. Mr. Harrell also presented evidence on
the value of the programs saved due to Plaintiffs’ terminations – and the
need for law enforcement management, rather than POBOR hearing
officers, to make determinations regarding how their departmental budgets
are allocated.
1 See, e.g., Orange County Register:
https://www.ocregister.com/2015/06/17/former-assistant-sheriff-testifies-oc-
sheriff-sandra-hutchens-unfairly-linked-him-to-scandal-plagued-mike-
carona-era/
6
Lynberg & Watkins’ Prior Experience & Qualifications
The OCSD won both in the trial court and on appeal – with the Court
of Appeal forcefully endorsing law enforcement leadership’s right to
determine how a department best allocates its resources. See, Anderson v.
Cnty. of Orange, Appellate Case No. G053824 (“a [POBOR] hearing officer
is not qualified to substitute his or her cost-benefit judgment for that of the
sheriff running the department.”).
In all three of these cases, and others like them, L&W listens to law
enforcement leadership to gather the key evidentiary points needed to win.
The Firm then uses all of the most modern tools available to shape and
control the evidence presented at trial. This includes talented jury
consultants (who assess prospective jurors through voice intonation and
facial cues) and who otherwise provide L&W attorneys with psychological
tips on evidence presentation strategy. L&W also utilizes compelling IT
expertise to best display the audio and videotape evidence which often
form a cornerstone of law enforcement litigation. And in appropriate cases,
L&W deploys computer generated animations to recreate incidents. In
many ways, L&W leads the way in Southern California in obtaining court
endorsement of this important developing evidentiary tool. See,
Landaverde v. City of Fontana, Appellate Case No. D074892 (Mr. Harrell ,
Ms. Gustafson and L&W partner Jesse K. Cox win on use of a computer
generated incident animation at trial : “the record demonstrates that the
[trial] court acted within its discretion in concluding that the [computer
generated] video depicted conditions substantially similar to those that
existed at the time of the accident, as described by witnesses, and was
thus admissible.”).
Perhaps most fundamentally, the Firm also strives to attract and
retain attorneys with strong people skills. L&W attorneys are known for
inspiring confidence in their law enforcement clients – and for making new
law enforcement friends. Even more, L&W attorneys have demonstrated
their ability to persuade lay jurors of the correct answer in sometimes
highly emotional cases over and over again. In short, L&W vigorously fights
(and wins) for our law enforcement clients because we know their issues
matter, not just for the officers and their Departments -- but for broader
overall community safety as well.
7
REFERENCES
Lynberg & Watkins identifies the following three references in support
of its proposal:
Mr. Gary Stopforth
Liability Claims Manager
COUNTY OF ORANGE
400 Civic Center Drive, 5th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 285-5515
Gary.Stopforth@ocgov.com
Ms. Renee Risinger
Assistant Claims Manager
COUNTY OF ORANGE
400 Civic Center Drive, 5th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 285-5518
Renee.Risinger@ocgov.com
Chief of Police Andrew Mills
PALM SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT
200 S. Civic Drive
Palm Springs, California 92263
(760) 323-8126
chief@palmspringsca.gov
8
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
9
TEAM MEMBER RESUMES
L&W has 17 attorneys with significant experience in law enforcement
defense to meet the Department’s needs. In the interest of the 30-page
limit to this proposal, only the resumes of our five personnel most relevant
to the Department’s stated needs are attached – i.e., S. Frank (“Shel”)
Harrell, Shannon L. Gustafson, Jesse K. Cox, Marlena R. Mlynarska and
Amy Margolies. All other Team resumes are naturally available upon your
request.
10
LYNBERG.COM
S. Frank Harrell
Managing Partner | sharrell@lynberg.com | 714.937.1010
EDUCATION:
The University of North Carolina, B.A.1982
Duke University and the University of North Carolina, JD 1985
BAR ADMISSIONS:
Supreme Court of California, 1988
Supreme Court of Virginia, 1986
The U.S. Supreme Court, 2006
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1988
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1986
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1990
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 1990
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1988
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 1990
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 1988
U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia, 1988
EXPERIENCE:
Mr. Harrell has litigated over 25 cases to verdict in state and federal courts.
All of Mr. Harrell’s trials have been in defense of governmental clients,
regarding a wide variety of allegations, including general torts, civil rights,
police liability, employment and dangerous condition of public property. He
has also successfully litigated scores of case dispositive motions which
resulted in the dismissal of the case.
Mr. Harrell has worked on over 50 appeals in state and federal courts on
behalf of public entities. He has obtained many published opinions
favorable to governmental interests. For example, Mr. Harrell was the
successful appellate advocate on behalf of the Orange County Sheriff’s
Department in Susag v. City of Lake Forest, et al., 94 Cal. App. 4th 1401
(2002). The Susag Court was the first California decision to restrict criminal
convicts from suing their arresting officers under tort law principles. Id. at
1412. Mr. Harrell was also the successful appellate advocate in McCown v.
City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2009). In McCown, the Ninth
Circuit limited plaintiff’s counsels’ ability to recover attorneys’ fees in high
multiples of what they recover on behalf of their client. Id.
11
LYNBERG.COM
Apart from the forgoing, in the past three years, Mr. Harrell has served as
counsel on many noteworthy “civil rights” matters, including Solorzano v.
City of Fontana (a police “excessive force” / “false arrest” matter involving a
large public melee which was defensed at trial in 2015), Sharpless v.
County of Orange (a female plaintiff claimed she was “assaulted” in her
home by law enforcement; Case defensed at trial in 2015) and Gordon v.
County of Orange, (a jail death matter against deputies seeking millions
which was dismissed by motion in 2019).
12
LYNBERG.COM
SHANNON L. GUSTAFSON
Equity Partner | sgustafson@lynberg.com | 714.352.3547
EDUCATION:
University of California, San Diego (B.A. 2000, Magna Cum Laude)
University of California, Los Angeles (J.D. 2003)
BAR ADMISSIONS:
California, 2003
United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, 2003
United States District Court for the Central District California, 2003
United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2003
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2003
EXPERIENCE:
Ms. Gustafson has spent her entire career defending public entities in a
variety of areas, including general torts, civil rights, police liability,
employment matters and dangerous conditions of public property in both the
state and federal courts in California. Ms. Gustafson served as a Deputy
County Counsel for the County of San Bernardino from June 2019 until
March of 2020 when she returned to private practice.
Ms. Gustafson has been part of the successful trial team throughout her
career in both federal and state court involving police officer liability and
employment law matters. Most recently, Ms. Gustafson served as lead trial
counsel in Baros v. Ramirez, 17-cv-00948 WLH, Central District California-
Los Angeles. The matter involved allegations by a former inmate in the
County jail that deputies used excessive force and/or failed to intervene
causing him to suffer a traumatic brain injury. While Defendant admitted to
punching Plaintiff several times in the head, Ms. Gustafson successfully
argued that the force used was necessary given Plaintiff’s active resistance
and threat to the security of the facility. The jury returned a unanimous
defense verdict after only a few hours of deliberation. Ms. Gustafson also
served as co-chair in the Landaverde v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVDS
1208532, trial which involved a wrongful death claim arising out of an
automobile accident occurring while a police officer was responding to an
emergency call. Despite Plaintiffs' request for $20 million, the jury returned a
defense verdict. Ms. Gustafson served as co-counsel in the high-profile
matter of Drakodaidis v. County of Orange, Case No. 30- 2014-00720698
13
LYNBERG.COM
arising out of allegations by the former Assistant Deputy CEO of the County
of Orange that she was wrongfully terminated due to her gender and
whistleblower status. The jury rendered a defense verdict.
Ms. Gustafson has also worked on numerous other cases that have been
dismissed either through a Motion to Dismiss or Summary Judgment, saving
her clients millions of dollars in potential jury verdicts. Most recently, she was
successful in obtaining summary judgment involving allegations of deliberate
indifference by Deputies resulting in the death of an inmate when he was
attacked by his cell mate and another matter where an inmate attempted
suicide, leaving her in a vegetative state. See, McCormack v. County of San
Bernardino, 5:21-cv-00148 JGB, Higgins v. County of San Bernardino, 5:21-
cv-00807-JGB.
Ms. Gustafson has worked on several appellate briefs and has argued
several times before both the California Courts of Appeal and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Gustafson argued before the 9th Circuit in the
matter of Cooper v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. 11-57144 where
the 9th Circuit panel unanimously affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs entire
case in a published opinion. See, Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F. 3d 772 (9th Cir.
2012). Specifically, the Court found that the claims of a death row inmate for
additional DNA testing were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Ms.
Gustafson also successfully argued the matter of Hernandez v. West Covina,
Case No. CV 10-03703 JAK (FFMx) in the 9th Circuit, a case involving
allegations that a police officer violated the substantive due process rights of
Plaintiff by arresting him so he could have an affair with the Plaintiffs wife.
In addition to trial work and appellate practice, Ms. Gustafson has extensive
experience mediating and negotiating settlements where appropriate.
Ms. Gustafson has provided training seminars for the Orange County
Sheriff’s Department on Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure issues and
for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department regarding Procedural
Safety Officers Bill of Rights issues (POBRA) and Employment Law updates.
14
LYNBERG.COM
JESSE K. COX
Partner | jcox@lynberg.com | 714.937.1010
EDUCATION:
University of Michigan (B.A. 2009)
Chapman University School of Law (J.D. 2012, Cum Laude)
BAR ADMISSIONS:
California, 2012
Supreme Court for the State of California, 2012
United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, 2012
United States District Court for the Central District of California, 2012
EXPERIENCE:
Mr. Cox first started at the firm as a Summer Associate in 2011. After
graduating from Chapman University School of Law in May 2012, where he
was a Moot Court Honor Board member and Notes & Comments Editor of
the Chapman Law Review, Mr. Cox joined the firm as a Litigation Associate.
Prior to beginning his career with the firm, Mr. Cox was a judicial extern for
Justice Raymond J. Ikola of the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District,
Division Three. Mr. Cox became a partner with the firm in June 2019.
Mr. Cox’s practice encompasses all areas of civil and complex civil
litigation relating to the defense of California public entities, including
general negligence, wrongful death, premises and personal injury liability,
civil rights, police liability, workplace investigations, labor and
employment, and appellate litigation. Mr. Cox has experience in all
phases of civil litigation, including responding to complaints, preparing and
responding to written discovery, drafting and arguing discovery and
dispositive motions in court, settlement negotiations, taking and defending
depositions, assisting in trial preparation, arguing motions and examining
witnesses in trial, and researching and preparing post -trial motions and
appellate briefing.
By way of illustration, Mr. Cox was part of the trial team that defensed a
twenty million dollar wrongful death claim in Landaverde v. City of
Fontana, Case No. CIVDS1208532, a case stemming for a fatal officer -
involved traffic collision. Mr. Cox was second chair at trial in the
successful defense of two multi-million dollar “excessive force” / civil rights
15
LYNBERG.COM
cases against his law enforcement clients, Grant v. County of Orange,
Case No. 30-2015-00786861, and Conan v. City of Fontana, Case No.
5:16-cv-01261-KK.
Mr. Cox has also managed several complex civil rights / wrongful death
matters to favorable resolution for his public entity and law enforcement
clients, including Nguyen v. County of Orange, Case No. 8:22-cv-01693-
DOC-ADS (fatal officer-involved shooting); Hermosillo v. County of
Orange, Case No. 8:20-cv-01387-JVS-ADS (fatal officer-involved
shooting); Herd v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. 5:17-02545-AB-
SP (fatal officer-involved shooting); Lavenant v. City of Palm Springs,
Case No. 5:17-cv-02267-KK (fatal officer-involved shooting); Driver v. City
of Fontana, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-02093-VAP-KK (fatal officer-involved
shooting), and Nagy, et al. v. County of Orange, et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00827446-CU-PP-CJC (jail death).
Mr. Cox has prepared briefing and argued motions and appeals resulting
in several citable orders and opinions that have helped shape and inform
the legal landscape concerning the civil rights and policy liability cases he
defends on behalf of his clients, including:
❖ Wolcott v. County of Orange, 2023 WL 3984215 (C.D. Cal. 2023)
(Motion to Dismiss granted in full against plaintiffs’ “excessive force,”
“interference with familial association,” “supervisorial liability,” and
“Monell” claims for relief in federal civil rights case stemming from
fatal officer-involved shooting of a mentally-ill individual);
❖ Reeves v. City of Palm Springs , 2023 WL 2247047 (C.D. Cal. 2023)
(Achieved dismissal with prejudice of civil rights action filed against
municipality and its police department stemming from fatal officer -
involved shooting that occurred after a high -speed pursuit and
involved four separate law enforcement agencies);
❖ Peck v. Montoya, 51 F.4th 877 (9th Cir. 2022) (Reversing district
court and granting summary judgment to non-shooting deputies in
deadly force case, finding they were not “integral participants” and
setting forth new standard for gauging “integral participation” in
Section 1983 litigation, and reversing district court and granting
16
LYNBERG.COM
summary judgment on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment
“Interference with Familial Association” claim);
❖ Rendon v. County of Orange, 2022 WL 16832810 (9th Cir. 2022)
(Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s Section 1983 civil rights and state
law action stemming from alleged “sexual abuse” in custody);
❖ Shalabi v. City of Fontana, San Bernardino County Superior Court
Case No. CIVDS1314694 (Cal. Super. 2013) (case dismissed Nov.
2022) (Motion for Summary Judgment granted in full in civil rights
case alleging violation of the Fourteenth Amendment stemming from
officer-involved shooting resulting in death of fleeing felon);
❖ Black v. City of Blythe, et al., 562 F.Supp.3d 820 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
(Motion to Dismiss granted in full in federal civil rights and state law
tort case arising from alleged false arrest);
❖ Lucero v. County of Orange, 536 F.Supp.3d 628, (C.D. Cal. 2021)
(Motion to Dismiss granted in full and with prejudice in federal civil
rights case arising from in-custody death of an inmate stemming
from alleged inadequate medical care; leave to amend denied);
❖ Hermosillo v. County of Orange, 562 F.Supp.3d 802 (C.D. Cal.
2021) (Motion for Summary Judgment granted on Plaintiff’s federal
“interference with familial relations” claim, Plaintiff’s state law
“Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress” and “Bane Act” claims,
and in favor of non-shooting deputy on Plaintiff’s “excessive force”
claims based on the “integral participation” and “failure to intervene”
doctrines);
❖ Sullivan v. City of Palm Springs, et al., 2021 WL 55067829 (Cal.
Super. 2018), Riverside County Superior Court Case No.
PSC1801928 (Case dismissed 2021) (Motion for Summary
Judgment granted in favor of public entity in action stemming from
police department’s alleged “failure to provide medical care” to
plaintiff following arrest);
❖ Fisher v. County of Orange, 2018 WL 1036847 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
(Summary judgment granted on Plaintiff’s civil rights claims for
“excessive force,” “unlawful arrest,” and alleged First Amendment
violations);
17
LYNBERG.COM
❖ Wilkey v. County of Orange, 295 F.Supp.3d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2017)
(Summary judgment granted on Plaintiff’s Americans with
Disabilities claim for “discrimination” in the Orange County Jail)
Other notable published orders in Mr. Cox’s police / civil rights cases
include Peck v. County of Orange, 2020 WL 4218224 (C.D. Cal. 2020);
Peck v. County of Orange, 2020 WL 4218223 (C.D. Cal. 2020); Rodrigues
v. County of Orange, 2020 WL 3396619 (C.D. Cal. 2020); Peck v. County
of Orange, 2020 WL 4353687 (C.D. Cal. 2020); Peck v. County of
Orange, 2020 WL 3026377 (C.D. Cal. 2020); Rendon v. County of
Orange, 2020 WL 974940 (C.D. Cal. 2020); Herd v. County of San
Bernardino, 311 F.Supp.3d 1157 (C.D. Cal. 2018); and Conan v. City of
Fontana, 2017 WL 3530350 (C.D. Cal. 2017).
Outside of the police / civil rights realm, Mr. Cox has managed several
complex premises liability wrongful death matters resolving in favorable
settlements, including Ledesma, et. al. v. City of Palm Springs, et al.,
Case No. INC1302238, consolidated with Walter, et al. v. City of Palm
Springs et al., Case No. INC1302398; and Huerto, et al. v. City of Palm
Springs, et al., PSC1602732, all of which involve multiple parties,
voluminous discovery, unique issues related to public entity immunities,
and roadway design and engineering. Mr. Cox has also prepared and
argued successful dispositive briefing in Huizar v. City of Huntington Park,
Case No. BC528391 (defense summary judgment granted on Plaintiff’s
claim for dangerous condition of public property) and Saavedra v. City of
Huntington Park, Case No. BC 530644 (defense summary judgment
granted on Plaintiff’s claim for dangerous condition of public property). He
also assisted in the successful dispositive briefing in Wellman v. City of
Fontana, Case No. CIVDS 1005054 (defense summary judgment granted
on Plaintiff’s claim for dangerous condition of public property on the basis
of “design immunity”) and Benson v. Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. et al.,
Case No. BC474979 (defense summary judgment granted in employment
matter involving claims of extortion, defamation, and Labor Code
violations). In January 2023, Mr. Cox authored a Motion for Directed
Verdict following a three-week jury trial in a “wrongful termination” case
called Smart v. County of Orange, Case No. 30-2018-00969802-CU-OE-
18
LYNBERG.COM
CJC, resulting in Plaintiff agreeing to dismissal with prejudice in exchange
for waiver of costs just before closing arguments.
Since 2012, Mr. Cox has been admitted to practice in the California
Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme
Court, as well as the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit and
the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
19
LYNBERG.COM
Amy R. Margolies
Associate | amargolies@lynberg.com | 714.937.1010
EDUCATION:
San Diego State University (B.A. 2007)
University of San Diego School of Law, (J.D. 2011)
BAR ADMISSIONS:
California, 2012
Supreme Court for the State of California, 2012
United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, 2012
United States District Court for the Southern District California, 2012
United States District Court for the Central District of California, 2021
EXPERIENCE:
Ms. Margolies has a passion for the representation of law enforcement,
having spent over a decade handling all aspects of peace officer legal
defense, including labor and employment matters, Internal Affairs
investigations, use of force, general police liability, and civil rights matters.
Ms. Margolies graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law on
an academic scholarship and received her Juris Doctorate with a
concentration in Criminal Litigation. Ms. Margolies has worked at the District
Attorney’s Office in the Sex Crimes and Stalking and Family Protection
divisions as well as the Public Defender’s Office in the misdemeanor and
high crimes division.
Ms. Margolies spent nine years providing legal service to police, handling all
aspects of peace officer legal defense including responding to critical
incidents including officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths, Internal
Affairs investigations, pre-disciplinary informal appeals regarding uses of
force (i.e. Skelly hearings), post-disciplinary evidentiary hearings (i.e. Chief’s
and Mayoral appeals), and course-and-scope criminal defense. She has
represented hundreds of local, state, and federal officers in administrative
discipline hearings, superior state court matters, arbitrations, and civil
service commission hearings on misconduct allegations and appeals.
Additionally, she has served as lead counsel on numerous oral arguments
and briefings in the Superior Court and Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District defending her law enforcement clients.
20
LYNBERG.COM
Ms. Margolies has contributed to the great body of peace officer appellate
law, working as lead counsel in oral argument or on briefing in numerous
published and unpublished cases, Gore v. San Diego County Civil Service
Commission, et al. (Deputy Hornacek), Case No. D073206 San Diego
Superior Court #37-2017-00023098-CU-WM-CTL, involving the termination
of a deputy sheriff for failing to meet standards as it relates to Fourth
Amendment Search and Seizure issues, and uses of force. Other appellate
experience includes her successful oral argument at the Court of Appeal in
Gore v. San Diego County Civil Service Commission, et al. (Deputy
Aguilera), Case No. D064260 San Diego Superior Court #37-2012-
000103131 involving the reinstatement of a deputy sheriff accused of lack of
candor; McFadden v. City of El Centro and City of El Centro Police
Department, Case No. ECU09395 involving the termination of a peace
officer for allegations of illegal stops and intentionally adjusting his camera
to not record activities; Harun v. Superintendent or President of Palomar
Community College District and others, Case No. 37-2015-00020965-CU-
WM-NC involving the termination of a peace officer for use of force on a
student and use of a taser on a transient.
Ms. Margolies has also worked extensively with police management and
labor associations to shape department policies and procedures and
negotiate Memorandums of Understanding. She has both informally
(through informal resolutions and grievances) and formally (through
arbitrations and writs of mandate) resolved disputes regarding contract
interpretations and enforcement.
Ms. Margolies’ current practice focuses on public entity defense. She has
been successful in dismissing cases through dispositive motions, Pastora v.
County of San Bernardino, Case No. 5:21-CV-01410-JGB, a wrongful death
case involving an inmate suicide in the County jail, and summary judgment
in the matter of McCormack v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. 5:21-
CV-00148-JGB, a wrongful death case involving an inmate-on-inmate attack
in the County Jail.
Ms. Margolies has also prepared briefing resulting in recent citable orders
and opinions helping shape the legal landscape in civil rights and police
liability cases on behalf of her clients including, M.D. v. County of San
Bernardino, 2023 WL 2342338 (C.D. Cal. 2023) involving an inmate on
inmate attack in a County jail and Monell claims against the County and
21
LYNBERG.COM
Jackson v. County of San Bernardino, 2023 WL 9066307 (C.D. Cal. 2023)
involving civil rights claims for excessive force and unlawful arrest.
Ms. Margolies was recently second chair in a civil rights use of force trial in
downtown Los Angeles, earning a unanimous defense verdict for her law
enforcement clients, Gerald Baros v. John San Bernardino County Deputy
Sheriff Doe 1 et al., Case No. 5:17-CV-00948-WLH-SHK.
In addition to litigation and appellate practice, Ms. Margolies has extensive
experience mediating and negotiating settlements where appropriate.
Finally, Ms. Margolies has provided training seminars to dozens of police
and sheriff departments in southern California on topics such as CA Gov.’t
Code § 3300 Peace Officer Bill of Rights (POBR), legal updates, and best
practices, and has also presented at the Peace Officers Research
Association of California (PORAC) conferences.
22
LYNBERG.COM
MARLENA R. MLYNARSKA
Senior Associate | mmlynarska@lynberg.com | 714.937.1010
EDUCATION:
University of La Verne (B.A. 2015, Magna Cum Laude)
Chapman University School of Law (J.D. 2019, Cum Laude)
BAR ADMISSIONS:
California, 2019
Supreme Court for the State of California, 2019
United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, 2020
United States District Court for the Central District of California, 2020
EXPERIENCE:
Ms. Mlynarska first started at the firm as a Summer Associate in 2018.
After graduating from Chapman University School of Law in May 2019 with
Honors, where she was a Moot Court Honor Board member and Editor of
the Chapman Law Review, Ms. Mlynarska joined the firm as a Litigation
Associate. Prior to beginning his career with the firm, Ms. Mlynarska was a
judicial extern for Justice Raymond J. Ikola of the California Court of
Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.
Ms. Mlynarska’s practice encompasses all areas of civil and complex civil
litigation relating to the defense of California public entities, including
general negligence, wrongful death, premises and personal injury liability,
civil rights, police liability, and appellate litigation. Ms. Mlynarska continues
to develop her experience in various phases of civil litigation, including
responding to complaints, preparing and responding to written discovery,
drafting discovery and dispositive motions, taking and defending
depositions, assisting in trial preparation, and researching and preparing
post-trial motions and appellate briefing.
23
MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW AND APPROACH
A. Ongoing Personnel and Labor Advice Service Area
L&W attorneys are available when and where you need us. L&W
knows that modern law enforcement is a 24/7 profession and no reach out
by our clients comes too early in the day or too late in the evening.
And all of this is particularly true with regard to personnel matters,
including employment law. L&W attorney Amy R. Margolies has particular
expertise in this area. Ms. Margolies has spent nine years providing legal
service to law enforcement, handling all aspects of peace officer
employment issues including pre-disciplinary informal appeals regarding
use of force (Skelly hearings) and post-disciplinary evidentiary hearings
(Chief’s and Mayoral appeals). She was on call and responded to countless
critical incidents and has appeared in hundreds of local, state, and federal
administrative discipline hearings, state Superior Court matters,
arbitrations, and civil service commission hearings on employee
misconduct allegations. Additionally, Ms. Margolies has served as lead
counsel on oral arguments and briefings in the Superior Court and Court of
Appeal, Fourth Appellate District representing her law enforcement clients.
Ms. Margolies has made important contributions to peace officer
appellate law, working as lead counsel in oral argument or on briefing in
numerous published and unpublished cases, Gore v. San Diego County
Civil Service Commission, et al. (Deputy Hornacek), Case No. D073206
San Diego Superior Court #37-2017-00023098-CU-WM-CTL, involving the
termination of a deputy sheriff for failing to meet standards as it relates to
Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure issues, and uses of force. Other
appellate experience includes her successful oral argument at the Court of
Appeal in Gore v. San Diego County Civil Service Commission, et al.
(Deputy Aguilera), Case No. D064260 (San Diego Superior Court No. 37-
2012-000103131) involving a deputy sheriff accused of lack of can dor;
McFadden v. City of El Centro and City of El Centro Police Department,
Case No. ECU09395 involving the termination of a peace officer for
allegations of illegal stops and intentionally adjusting his camera to not
record activities; Harun v. Superintendent or President of Palomar
Community College District and others, Case No. 37-2015-00020965-CU-
24
Lynberg & Watkins’ Management Overview & Approach
WM-NC involving the termination of a peace officer for use of force on a
student and use of a taser on a transient.
Ms. Margolies has strong people skills and often used these skills to
lower internal department tension and resolve issues (whenever
management deems it appropriate). More particularly, Ms. Margolies has
worked extensively with police management and labor associations to
shape department policies and procedures and negotiate Memorandums of
Understanding. She has both informally (through informal resolutions and
grievances) and formally (through arbitrations and writs of mandate)
resolved disputes regarding contract interpretations and enforcement.
No two law enforcement personnel matters are exactly alike. But Ms.
Margolies’ consistent practice is to listen and give clear, prompt and on-
point answers to personnel questions. Once management gives instruction,
Ms. Margolies executes and keeps management advised every step of the
way with telephonic and written status reports. L&W knows she would
prove to be an invaluable resource for Azusa’s law enforcement personnel
needs.
If an employment matter does go to litigation, L&W has the expertise
and deep bench needed for a successful result. For example, L&W’s
success in employment matters led Orange County’s management to
select L&W as defense counsel for one of its Board of Supervisor
members, who now faces high-profile employee-generated claims. See,
Mendoza v. County of Orange, OCSC Case No. 30-2022-01281642-CU-
WT-CJC. Just a few weeks ago, L&W obtained another important
employment law win when an employee plaintiff literally gave up after L&W
filed a forceful dismissal motion against her with the Superior Court. See,
Mumford v. County of Orange, OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01045174-CU-
OE-CJC.
B. California Government Code § 3300
As noted above, L&W has led the way in creating favorable law (and
delivering favorable results) to California’s law enforcement leadership on
POBOR issues. This includes successfully creating case law clarifying
POBOR hearing officers’ subordinate role to law enforcement leadership in
key areas. See, Anderson v. County of Orange, Appellate Case No.
25
Lynberg & Watkins’ Management Overview & Approach
G053824 (“a [POBOR] hearing officer is not qualified to substitute his or
her cost-benefit judgment for that of the sheriff running the department.”).
Our work on POBOR has given us a wealth of knowledge that protects our
clients from incorrect application of POBOR’s sometimes nuanced
provisions.
Here too, Ms. Margolies would serve as an important expert resource
on POBOR issues for your Department’s leadership. For example, Ms.
Margolies has provided training seminars to dozens of police and sheriff
departments in Southern California on POBOR, including legal updates and
best practices. She has also presented at Peace Officers Research
Association of California (“PORAC”) conferences.
In short, Ms. Margolies has a wealth of POBOR experience and
stands ready to answer questions from law enforcement leadership that
lead to successful management strategy on POBOR issues. She is also
well-experienced in executing on this strategy by successfully advocating in
POBOR-related proceedings.
C. Use of Force Service Area
L&W has a distinguished record of performance with regard to
litigating “use of force” issues, including the use of “deadly force”. We
consequently understand that your Department needs lawyers who do not
simply react to the opposing side or case developments. The Department
needs its lawyers to display initiative and innovation to resolve cases in the
most effective manner possible.
More specifically, L&W appreciates that your Department needs
prompt investigation, evaluation, planning, and a mastery of the law and
facts to bring cases to a successful resolution, whether by settlement or
through litigation. As litigation progresses, the Department needs its
counsel to reevaluate the case posture as needed to ensure the best
possible outcome, particularly as new facts emerge, and legal issues come
into better focus. And Department leadership needs to be kept apprised of
all significant developments as they occur — whether they be emerging
facts, shifting claims or other strategically-relevant changes in case
dynamics.
26
Lynberg & Watkins’ Management Overview & Approach
L&W is prepared to meet your Department’s needs and exceed its
expectations based on the following core values and client service
principles:
Responsiveness: We listen to our clients’ management structure, seek
feedback and adapt in response to evolving client objectives.
Investment: We invest in understanding our clients’ operations, strategic
objectives, and service expectations.
Initiative: We work to anticipate the Department’s needs, deliver practical
solutions, and provide proactive advice to inform client decisions.
Accessibility: We are available to our clients when and where they need
us.
Communication: We keep management fully informed through regular
and timely communication. And we recognize that the Department is a
sophisticated consumer of legal services. City Risk Management will make
the call on all significant strategic and tactical decisions in its litigated files.
Value: We will deliver value to your Department by staffing matters cost-
effectively and by using resources efficiently.
Successful execution on these principles has resulted in L&W
routinely receiving well-publicized, potentially high-exposure case
assignments on a wide-variety of “use of force” issues. Our litigators are
consequently experienced in the supervision and management of a wide
range of cases, from the modestly-sized to the large and complex.
The Firm is skilled in all phases of “use of force” litigation — from pre-
lawsuit investigations, pre-trial evidence collection through and including
trial and appeal. Of note, L&W has enjoyed marked success in obtaining
pre-trial dismissal of “use of force” litigation. Apart from avoiding the time,
effort and expense of trial, the Firm’s pre-trial dismissal victories have led to
important new defenses for public entities.
For example, the Firm is proud to have helped lead the way in
obtaining early dismissal of unfairly confused complaints. See, Herd v.
27
Lynberg & Watkins’ Management Overview & Approach
County of San Bernardino, 311 F.Supp.3d 1157 (C.D. Cal. 2018)(unfairly
vague, fact-free claims dismissed); Mason v. County of Orange, 251 F.R.D.
562, 563-564 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (ordering dismissal of confused complaint:
“Experience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and precisely,
issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court’s docket
becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence
in the court’s ability to administer justice.”); Salazar v. County of Orange,
564 Fed. Appx. 322, 322 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal where “a fatal
flaw in [Plaintiff’s] Third Amended Complaint was that it ‘impermissibly
lump[ed] together claims and defendants.’ This left ‘Defendants guessing
[which] claim is brought against them.’”).
Our Firm has built off these victories in recent years, securing
multiple early orders and opinions that have helped narrow and shape high-
stakes litigation into a form that positioned it for controlled discovery and,
ultimately, favorable disposition. See, e.g., Reeves v. City of Palm Springs,
2023 WL 2247047, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2023) (deadly force case dismissed by
motion); Lucero v. County of Orange, 536 F.Supp.3d 628 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
(motion to dismiss granted; inmate civil rights / wrongful death case
dismissed with prejudice); Hermosillo v. County of Orange, 2020 WL
6785303, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (motion to dismiss granted; remaining
claims in officer-involved shooting case litigated to favorable settlement);
Rodrigues v. County of Orange, 2020 WL 3396619, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal.
2020) (motion to dismiss granted and officer-involved case voluntarily
dismissed); Rendon v. County of Orange, 2020 WL 974940, at *3 (C.D.
Cal. 2020) and Rendon v. County of Orange, 2019 WL 4284521, at *2
(C.D. Cal. 2019) (successive motions to dismiss granted and inmate’s civil
rights case dismissed with prejudice); Maldonado v. County of Orange,
2019 WL 6139937, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (motion to dismiss granted;
remaining claims in officer-involved taser death case litigated to favorable
settlement); Wilkey v. County of Orange, 2017 WL 11447980, at *3 (C.D.
Cal. 2017) (motion to dismiss granted; inmate civil rights / jail medical care
case won on summary judgment); Moore v. County of Orange, 2017 WL
10518114, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (motion to dismiss granted and inmate
“wrongful death” case voluntarily dismissed).
If trial does become necessary, trial counsel (Messrs. Harrell and Cox
and Ms. Gustafson and Ms. Margolies) have a wealth of experience
representing law enforcement in “excessive force” litigation. For example,
28
Lynberg & Watkins’ Management Overview & Approach
in Grant v. County of Orange, OCSC Case No. 30-2015-00786861,
Messrs. Harrell and Cox squared off against a high-net-worth female’s
eyebrow-raising claims that she was savagely “beaten” and “kicked” by
three deputies for no good reason.
Here too, L&W used pertinent law enforcement video, IT skills and
medical testimony to demonstrate the risible holes (and flat-out
inconsistencies) in the Plaintiff’s overly-dramatic testimony. L&W also
discovered that Plaintiff had professional training as an actress -- and used
that information to highlight her evident experience at making made-up
events seem real to audiences. At the close of evidence, our audience (the
jury) rightly found for the deputies and awarded Plaintiff nothing.
D. Conduct Independent Investigations
Ms. Margolies has spent nine years providing legal service to law
enforcement, including handling Internal Affairs investigations (with both
internal and outside investigators). Ms. Margolies is skilled at preparing IA
strategy, advocating on Department policy issues, questioning witnesses
and handling exhibits. She is intimately familiar with the law associated with
IA proceedings and stands ready to successfully represent the
Department’s interests as needed – or to simply offer sage advice to law
enforcement leadership. Ms. Margolies has a superior track record
participating in IA matters large and small.
29
FEE PROPOSAL
We propose a rate of $135 per hour for paralegals/law clerks, $225
per hour for associates and $275 per hour for partners.1 Our Team’s most
important goal is meaningful public service – which, in this instance, means
representing your Department on the interesting matters your
correspondence references. The rates for our services are a secondary
consideration.
CONCLUSION
L&W prides itself on its long and growing record of service to
Southern California’s law enforcement community. We look forward to
meeting you soon and hope to have a face-to-face opportunity to
emphasize our strong desire to represent your distinguished organization.
Dated: May 2, 2024 Respectfully,
S. FRANK HARRELL
Managing Partner
LYNBERG & WATKINS
1 As requested, this will confirm that our proposal shall be valid for
acceptance for a period of at least 90 days from the closing date indicated
in the solicitation.
30