San Jose Brown Act lawsuit cut off

The lawsuit in San Jose where a Vietnamese-American group alleges the City Council improperly communicated before the vote to name the Vietnamese area on Story Road has been chopped off at the knees, when a judge granted summary judgment to the city on the Brown Act violation and left alive a dispute over $3,800 cost of a Public Records Act request.

Council member Madison Nguyen, long the subject of protests by the plaintiff group, was elated. She told the Bolsavik, “The summary judgment clearly states none of the councilmember violated the Brown Act,” which is not exactly what the order said.

The plaintiff group Vietnamese-American Community of Northern California, on the other hand, sent out a notice to Vietnamese press (read here) saying the judge “has recognized that there was a Brown Act violation,” which isn’t true either.

Judge Mark H. Pierce‘s order, received Thursday (read here), ended the controversy over whether the City Council communicated improperly before voting to name the Story Road area “Saigon Business Distrct.” The plaintiff had claimed that the City Council violated the Brown Act through a series of email exchanges before the meeting.

The email allegedly resulted in a pre-meeting agreement by the majority to choose the name “Saigon Business District” over other names including “Little Saigon.” And the Council did vote in November 2007 to use the name “Saigon Business District.”

As protests erupted, the Council in its March 2008 meeting revoked its previous decision.

Judge Pierce (whom the plaintiff described in its press release as a new judge who lacks knowledge and experience) held that “the City Council’s alleged use of a series of communications to deliberate . . . was cured by its rescinding of Resolution No. 74127 on March 4, 2008.”

The alleged violation was thus cured, albeit not within the required 30-day period. However, the judge held that the “failure to cure its violation within 30 days is a ‘one-time past offense’ that is unrelated to a present or future violation.” Hence, no grounds for an injunction or declaratory relief.

Left alive is the second cause of action in which VACNORCAL alleges that the City improperly required them to pay $3,800 before complying with a Public Records Act request.

The Bolsavik suspects that whatever records requested were already produced as part of the lawsuit’s discovery, so it is unclear what kind of injunction would be appropriate now.

The plaintiff’s press release said they would “appeal to a higher court.” However, the group’s web site, several hours later still says they’re “deciding whether to pursue an appeal.”