Rampart settlement irks city leaders

Eight years after the Rampart police scandal erupted, several key Los Angeles city officials are fighting a proposed settlement for a final batch of lawsuits that could push the city’s total bill for the corruption episode well beyond $100 million.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s office and the City Council’s budget committee oppose a $16.85-million settlement that would resolve litigation by four current and former Los Angeles police officers who allege they were falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted.

The proposed settlement would cover three pending lawsuits as well as a $15-million jury verdict in favor of three of the officers in another case that the city is appealing and more than two dozen administrative cases related to the men.

The full council, which is scheduled to consider the settlement today, has been told that the city could face up to $40 million in liability if it loses every major issue at trial. That would come on top of about $70 million in Rampart-related settlements already paid to gang members, drug dealers and other victims of police misconduct.

Attorneys for the city and the officers are due back in federal court Monday to update Judge Cormac J. Carney on the progress of the settlement. Carney, who has expressed frustration over delays by the city, could set a trial date for the three pending lawsuits.

But several council members and Villaraigosa’s chief counsel say the cost is too high. They also believe that it is premature to settle the entire batch of cases while the city appeals the $15-million verdict. Opening arguments before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are scheduled for Nov. 7.

“Ideally, we’d like to see the settlement rejected,” said Thomas Saenz, the mayor’s legal counsel. “We have a chance to win a reversal [of the jury verdict]. In that context, I don’t believe a global settlement . . . is advisable.”

Attorneys for the four officers accuse city officials of dragging their feet over a politically sensitive matter involving police whose names have become synonymous with the corruption scandal.

The attorneys said the city could miss an opportunity to resolve all of the cases for the cost of last year’s jury verdict alone -- about $17 million when interest and attorney’s fees are added.

“They are basically making a political decision rather than a fiscal decision,” said Joseph Y. Avrahamy, one of the attorneys. “In the long run, our clients are probably going to end up with more.”

The Rampart skirmish comes as the city faces more than 250 legal claims over the May 1 police melee in MacArthur Park and on the heels of another recent legal settlement for a black firefighter who was served a meal laced with dog food by his colleagues.

Villaraigosa vetoed a $2.7-million settlement for Firefighter Tennie Pierce, and the council agreed last month to reduce the amount to nearly $1.5 million.

At the center of the Rampart litigation is Officer Paul Harper, suspended Sgt. Edward Ortiz, former Sgt. Brian Liddy and former Officer Michael Buchanan.

A jury found Liddy, Ortiz and Buchanan guilty in November 2000 of conspiring to frame two gang members in an arrest, but the trial judge overturned the verdicts after determining that there had been a prejudicial error in the jury instructions.

Liddy, Ortiz and Harper were acquitted of all charges related to a second gang-related arrest that also occurred in 1996.

The officers said they were humiliated by the allegations and that their reputations were ruined. All four sued the city, alleging that they were arrested without probable cause and made into scapegoats for the Rampart scandal.

A federal jury last year awarded $5 million each to Harper, Liddy and Ortiz. Judge Carney later refused to overturn the awards or to grant the city’s request for a new trial, saying there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that “the LAPD ruined the lives of three dedicated and highly skilled police officers” and that the Police Department “had no probable cause” for arresting them or recommending that they be prosecuted.

In May, private attorneys for the city and the four officers hammered out the $16.85-million proposed settlement. But a city claims board, staffed by Saenz and Council President Eric Garcetti, rejected the proposal last month.

The council’s Budget and Finance Committee -- including council members Wendy Greuel, Jose Huizar, Bill Rosendahl and Greig Smith -- also voted unanimously against it last week. Committee Chairman Bernard Parks, a former LAPD chief, recused himself because he is named as a defendant in the litigation.

Some officials say they object to officers who are named in more than one lawsuit double dipping. And some, including Saenz from the mayor’s office, question whether a private attorney hired by the city had the authority to negotiate the settlement.

Lawyer Kim Colwell of the Meyers Nave law firm in Oakland brokered the deal even though another lawyer is handling the appeal of the $15-million verdict.

“I don’t think she ever came to us and said, ‘May I have authority to settle this for eight figures,’ ” said Councilman Jack Weiss. “You should go to the client before negotiating, not after.”

Colwell said she kept in regular contact with the appellate attorney, Ed Horowitz, in the months leading up to the settlement agreement and worked closely with the head of the LAPD’s risk management group, Cmdr. Stuart Maislin. She said that the council and mayor must decide whether the settlement is in the city’s best interest.

“I only tried to do the right thing for my client,” Colwell said. “Ultimately, they will review the settlement and if they don’t like it, they can reject it. It’s their call.”

duke.helfand@latimes.com