Court Revives Bernson’s Libel Suit, Extending Statute of Limitations

In a decision that surprised attorneys for both sides, the state Supreme Court on Monday reinstated Los Angeles City Councilman Hal Bernson’s lawsuit against a Granada Hills landfill operator and a political consultant, who Bernson contends leaked false information about his travel expenses.

The justices ruled 4 to 2 that the usual one-year time limit for filing libel lawsuits can be extended when defendants accused of disseminating allegedly defamatory material intentionally conceal their identities.

Writing for the majority, Justice Arman Arabian waxed poetic, borrowing from Shakespeare:

“Stolen property may be replaced or recovered but where does one go to restore one’s reputation? In the imortal words of Shakespeare’s Iago: ‘Who steals my purse steals trash. ‘Twas mine, and ‘tis his and has been slave to thousands; but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.”

The court ruled that when a defendant “intentionally cloaked its identity, factors of fairness and unjust enrichment come into play,” and that “equity and good conscience” dictate that the statute of limitations be lifted in such libel cases.

The justices sent Bernson’s suit back to Los Angeles Superior Court for trial--six years after Bernson claims he was smeared in a 36-page dossier, called “Los Angeles Councilman Hal Bernson--An Analysis of City/Campaign Financial Travel 1983-1988,” circulated anonymously to Los Angeles media representatives. The dossier claimed Bernson used campaign and city funds for personal expenses, including “extensive personal travel” in Europe and Asia and suggested such expenditures were “unusual” and “legally questionable,” according to the court’s opinion.

Bernson contends that Browning-Ferris Industries was behind the dossier. Bernson and BFI battled politically for years over the company’s attempts to expand the Sunshine Canyon dump in Granada Hills.

According to the opinion, Bernson said he received a copy of the dossier in 1988, but did not suspect who circulated it until two Los Angeles Times reporters told him during an interview in February, 1990, that they believed it was BFI. A BFI attorney at that time denied the company was the source, and demanded a retraction from the newspaper. The opinion said that Bernson contends that in May, 1991, another Times reporter told a Bernson aide that political consultant Mark Ryavec prepared the dossier on BFI’s behalf.

Bernson’s travel expenses were widely reported and criticized in published reports. In 1990, The Times reported that between 1987 and 1989, Bernson spent more than $120,000 in campaign funds on travel, often flying first class and staying in expensive hotels. He traveled to Paris, Hong King, Italy, London, Beijing, Israel, Hawaii and New Orleans, outspending then-Gov. George Deukmejian.

But no evidence was found that Bernson had broken any laws.

Bernson filed the suit, seeking $20 million in damages, in January, 1992. Named as defendants were Browning-Ferris Industries; BFI Vice President Les Bittenson; and political consultants Mark Ryavec and Lynn Wessell, who has since died.

BFI still denies that it played any role in preparing or distributing the dossier, company attorney Steven Weston said.

Bernson had no comment on the court’s decision, but aide Grieg Smith said, “We are elated.” “This sends a message that you can’t slander and libel people and be malicious, and then just hide for a year and let the harm go by,” said Bernson’s lawyer, Neil Papiano. “It’s a major new rule, one that I think is proper.”

“I think what the court is saying is the identity of a defendant must be known before a libel action is filed,” BFI attorney Weston said. “It changes the law.”

He added that his clients “look forward to trying the case on its merits. . . . We look forward to questioning the councilman about his expenditures.”

Bill Winslow, attorney for consultant Ryavec, said he was disappointed by the court’s decision and the change in the law it created.

“I’m unhappy,” Winslow said. “I thought we had a very sound statute of limitations defense and we’re now talking about a situation where we’re going to have to try to figure out what Mr. Bernson’s reputation was like back in 1988. If this case goes to trial, we’re going to be using rather old evidence, and in general that doesn’t help the search for the truth.”

And, Winslow said, the case will likely raise another other fundamental legal issue--free speech: “Inquiry about the propriety of expenditures by elected public officials is as much what the First Amendment is about as practically anything, in my opinion.”