Lawyer Offers Deal for Avoiding Triple Rampart Damages

Attorney Stephen Yagman offered Tuesday to drop a claim for triple damages in a federal racketeering lawsuit against Rampart police officers.

In exchange, he said, the city must quit relying on a one-year statute of limitations to block lawsuits by victims in the police abuse scandal.

He also demanded that the city reverse its position that only defendants whose convictions have been overturned can sue for false arrest.

Yagman made his proposal in a blistering letter to City Atty. James K. Hahn, whom he accused of talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Venice civil rights lawyer gave Hahn until Sept. 27 to respond.

Hahn wasted no time rejecting Yagman’s proposal. He said through a spokesman that he expects to successfully defend the city against the racketeering charge, and will not forgo any legal defenses at his disposal, including the one-year statute of limitations.

In his letter, Yagman said he filed suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) “because of your office’s policy of inappropriately trying to prevent LAPD victims from getting compensation . . . by trying to get their claims thrown out based on the one-year statute of limitations.”

The RICO law has a four-year statute of limitations. It also provides for triple damages.

Yagman also cited what he said was Hahn’s call for just compensation to those wronged by Rampart officers.

“Now,” he wrote, “your two-mouthed policy has brought a world of trouble on the city and its taxpayers because your wrong-headed policy resulted in the federal court approving of the RICO claims, which will expose the city to triple damages.

“In one fell swoop of stupidity, you single-handedly tripled the city’s estimated $100 million liability to $300 million.”

Last month, U.S. District Judge William J. Rea ruled that Yagman and co-counsel Brian Lysaght could proceed with a lawsuit seeking damages under the federal Civil Rights Act and under RICO. The suit must clear more legal hurdles before it can go to trial.

So far, about 100 convictions have been overturned because of evidence that Rampart Division police officers framed the defendants. City officials estimate that lawsuits growing out of the corruption scandal could cost taxpayers more than $100 million.

While Yagman suggested in his letter that RICO, if applied to other Rampart cases, could boost the city’s liability to $300 million, that may be an exaggeration.

Under RICO, a victim can seek compensation for economic losses--a ruined business or lost wages--but not for personal injury, including pain and emotional suffering.

Accordingly, an innocent person who was shot by police could collect for lost wages under RICO, but not for his wounds.

Many, if not most, victims in the Rampart scandal are presumed to be low-wage earners. So, even if their lost wages were tripled, that would not triple the total cost to the city.

Personal injuries would be covered under victims’ Civil Rights Act claims, but there is no provision under that law for triple damages.

Another potential problem for RICO litigants is a 1981 Supreme Court ruling that punitive damages cannot be assessed against municipalities in civil rights suits, on the theory that taxpayers should not be punished for wrongs committed by government agencies.

Arguably, that reasoning could be applied to RICO claims, said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School.

Assuming that is the case, and considering Los Angeles’ practice of indemnifying police officers for punitive damages, the city could argue that taxpayers would be punished by any award of triple damages under RICO.

Coincidentally, Hahn was called by Yagman to testify Tuesday in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by a woman who says LAPD officers trashed her house during a citywide raid against suspected street gang members.

Yagman asked Hahn a few questions about the U.S. Justice Department’s demand that the city sign a consent decree governing the LAPD and about an alleged “pattern and practice” of misconduct. He was not questioned about the raid.