IRVINE : Cosgrove Case Is Now Up to the Judge

Participants in a lawsuit challenging City Councilman Cameron Cosgrove’s right to hold office concluded the first part of their trial Thursday, as a Superior Court judge took the matter under advisement.

Saying he hoped that it would be a “matter of days, not weeks,” before he rendered an opinion, Judge Claude M. Owens concluded the portion of the trial devoted to debate of legal matters.

Owens will rule on whether the legal issues alone are enough to decide the case. If they are, Cosgrove is expected to retain his seat; if not, the second phase of the trial would pick up in March.

In Thursday’s session with lawyers, Owens picked holes in each side’s arguments, leaving both the plaintiffs and the defendants puzzled as to which way the judge may be leaning.

“He’s very inscrutable,” said Thomas M. Jones, lawyer for two Irvine residents who filed the case. “I really can’t read him at all.”

The suit, which has been the object of intense scrutiny and debate in Irvine for months, seeks to remove Cosgrove from office, arguing that his seating on the council violated Measure D. That measure passed in June, 1988, and stated that in certain council elections, residents could circulate a petition to prevent a council candidate from taking office.

Measure D applies in elections where an incumbent council member is elected mayor, leaving a vacancy on the council. That occurred in 1988, when Larry Agran, then a councilman, easily won election as mayor.

Two council seats were open that year, and Cosgrove finished third in the balloting by just over 100 votes. But because Agran’s seat became open when he became mayor, Cosgrove was sworn in as a councilman to fill Agran’s unexpired term.

At issue is whether Measure D is binding on the 1988 race, since it passed as part of that same election.

Much of the courtroom debate centered on another related issue of timing. The Measure D petitions calling for a special election to fill Cosgrove’s seat were dated July 5, 10 days before the secretary of state certified the measure as being valid.

The judge has twice questioned Jones about whether the petitions can be considered valid since they predate the formal adoption of the law that allowed for them.

Howard J. Klein, an Irvine patent attorney and one of the plaintiffs in the case, agreed that the timing of the petition posed “an important question, but we feel that we have arguments and precedent to support our position.”

Lawyers for Cosgrove, however, argued that on the basis of the timing alone, the case against their client should be thrown out.

“It’s pretty clear,” said Franklin J. Lunding, one of two lawyers the City of Irvine has retained to represent Cosgrove. “If the petitions weren’t good, then there is nothing else to decide.”