Carson Libel Suit Settled, but Its Terms Are Disputed

Even after settling the libel suit between Carson City Council members Michael Mitoma and Sylvia Muise, the two sides disagreed about the terms.

Mitoma, who sued Muise, said he got the apology that he wanted from her but little else.

Muise, however, said Mitoma backed out of a suit that he never should have filed and knew he would lose.

What is certain is that Muise disavowed implying in a political hit piece that Mitoma or Pacific Business Bank was involved in criminal activity. Mitoma is president of the bank. The mailer came out four days before the 1986 City Council election, and Mitoma contended in his lawsuit that it helped Muise and her political ally, the late Tom Mills, win the election. Mitoma finished third in a two-seat race.

According to C. Glen Higuchi, Pacific Business Bank executive vice president and general counsel, Muise signed an apology along with former council candidate Aaron Carter and political consultant Jim Hayes.

Sought $62.5 Million

Mitoma and the bank had originally sought $62.5 million in damages in the suit filed against Muise, Mills, Carter, Hayes and several other residents who, depositions showed, were no longer members of an organization when it distributed the mailer.

Under the settlement, signed May 17, certain parts were to be kept confidential, both sides said Saturday. Higuchi, however, did assert that each side agreed to pay its own legal costs, which were estimated at more than $50,000.

Muise disputed that, saying “it cost Mr. Mitoma to get out of the lawsuit.” She would not elaborate. Her attorney, Patty Mortl, declined to discuss the terms of the settlement.

Mitoma was not available Saturday for comment, but Higuchi said the bank did not pay any of the other side’s legal fees.

Higuchi added that Mitoma is pleased that the lawsuit has been settled and accepts the “formal apology from those responsible for the pamphlet attacking” him and the bank.

Mortl said, “I think by nature of a settlement nobody wins. What is a loss is to have been taken through the courts for two years.”

Mitoma, elected to the council in 1987 and reelected in April, contended in the lawsuit that the political mailer charged that he and the bank were involved in laundering illicit drug money. He also said that Muise and her political allies, including Mills, knowingly included false statements against him and the bank in the brochure.

Muise and several other defendants have defended the brochure as being accurate and said the statements merely criticized Mitoma’s banking expertise.

According to depositions, the brochure was financed by Muise and Mills, who had it distributed through Carsonites Organized for Good Government, a two-member organization headed by Carter. Hayes, a political consultant from Long Beach, said in depositions that he assembled the mailer and had it printed.

In the lawsuit, Mitoma and the bank objected to several statements contained in the mailer, including one set in large type that said the bank was being investigated in a 1986 federal drug money laundering case. Neither the bank nor Mitoma were defendants in the drug case, although Mitoma said in the lawsuit that people who read the pamphlet believed that Mitoma and the bank were on trial. Mitoma, who was called as a prosecution witness in the case, alleged that the pamphlet misrepresented his testimony about bank customers who were on trial.

Mitoma alleged that the pamphlet misrepresented his testimony by rephrasing a narrowly worded question in a way that made his answer--quoted in the brochure--appear an admission of serious wrongdoing.

In a telephone interview, Higuchi, saying that he was reading from what he termed “a formal apology” signed by Muise, Carter and Hayes, quoted them as saying that they “wish to state the political pamphlet . . . was not intended to imply that Michael I. Mitoma or Pacific Business Bank or its directors or officers knew of any criminal activity involving customer accounts at Pacific Business Bank.”

According to Higuchi, the statement went on to say, “To the extent that the pamphlet may have been misunderstood, we wish to apologize.”

In a separate telephone interview Saturday, Muise said that, according to her records, the final sentence offering an apology was not part of the statement she signed.

Both sides said that legal expenses were a factor in reaching the settlement.

Mortl, who had represented most of the other defendants, said the costs of defending the case had reached about $40,000. Mitoma had said that the cost of prosecuting the lawsuit was considerably more than $10,000.

“Freedom of speech isn’t free,” Muise said. “It cost me more than $5,000 to defend myself. I don’t own a bank and neither I nor my friends or supporters who were sued could afford to continue to defend freedom of speech against such baseless, worthless, politically motivated charges.”

Higuchi said that “financial considerations also affect the bank.”

Muise said Mitoma dropped the suit because there was nothing left for him to gain.