Most Issues in Angels Suit Will Be Decided by a Judge

The California Angels “won some and lost some” Friday with an Orange County Superior Court ruling that a judge will decide most but not all of the baseball club’s $100-million breach-of-contract lawsuit against the City of Anaheim and a developer.

“After the court determines what the parties meant by their agreements, then a jury trial can be had based on those findings,” Judge Frank D. Domenichini said during the hearing in Santa Ana on Friday. “The court will have defined what the contract was, what the breach was, and what, if any, damages (occurred).”

Domenichini said he will decide issues of fairness in the contract with the Angels. A jury will decide the issue of damages.

William Campbell, the Angels’ attorney, said Friday that Goldenwest Baseball Co., the Angels’ parent organization, had wanted a jury to first decide some points before a judge ruled on matters of fairness.

“The conduct of a city government is at stake,” Campbell said after the daylong hearing. “Two and a half million fans came out to watch (the baseball team play) this year, and the public has a real interest in this, and we think it’s appropriate for a jury of the people to decide these things.”

Campbell called the likelihood of the trial reaching a jury after the judge decides several key points in the case “pretty good.”

The Angels, owned by Gene Autry, may consider appealing the judge’s ruling, Campbell said, adding, “I think we won some and lost some today.”

At the heart of the dispute are the contracts that Anaheim offered first to the Angels and later to the Los Angeles Rams to get them to move to Anaheim, and who has rights to the parking lot.

Goldenwest, which filed the lawsuit Aug. 8, 1983, contends that the dispute is about parking space. The organization says that its original 1964 lease guarantees it at least 12,000 spaces of surface parking and approval of any “reduction or diminutions” of facilities.

Anaheim officials say developments proposed by Anaheim Stadium Associates will increase, not decrease, parking spaces, and they point to a clause in the contract that grants Anaheim, which owns the land, “exclusive control.” Anaheim Stadium Associates is a joint venture of the development firm of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes of Los Angeles, and Ramco, owned by heirs of the late Carroll Rosenbloom, who also own the Rams.

Jury Requested

On Friday, Campbell requested that a jury be impaneled to at least sit in on the judge’s hearing on “fairness” issues to avoid presenting the case twice in what he said would amount to two trials. But attorneys for the city and Anaheim Stadium Associates argued that it would be a waste of time to select a jury for matters that the judge’s verdict might make moot.

“There’s no reason for a jury to sit in that (jury) box for 60 days to hear that stuff,” said Bill Augustini, the attorney for Anaheim Stadium Associates.

The judge, stating that the Angels wanted “two bites of the apple,” agreed with the city and developer.

“To have a jury sit there . . . and have this mixture of . . . issues tried, . . . I think it would lengthen, not shorten, the trial,” Domenichini said.

City’s Attorney Pleased

“We’re happy with the result,” William Wynder, Anaheim’s attorney, said. “We think it was correctly decided.”

The judge postponed until Nov. 25 further hearings in the case, which had been scheduled to go to trial Monday.

In a related action, Anaheim City Manager William O. Talley announced late Friday a revised total on the number of paved surface parking spaces that will be available at the stadium with the proposed office buildings and parking structures.

”. . . We will actually be able to provide 527 more paved surface spaces for stadium events than when the Angels filed their suit,” Talley said in a statement. This would be accomplished, he said, by paving and striping sections of the lot that are not now paved; requiring employees to park in the proposed parking structures or off-site during major events, and redesigning the “bulk” of the existing lot more efficiently.

Attorneys and spokespersons for the Angels could not be reached for comment late Friday.

Talley said the statement was released not so much as a settlement proposal as an effort on the city’s part to “set the record straight for the public.”