Money an Issue in Angel Case?

The Anaheim City Council should demand explanations for the vague language that the Angels say permits them to change their name and should consider how much taxpayer money to spend if the city continues to lose in court, Councilman Richard Chavez said Monday.

“I hate to start spending all this money if we’re not going to win,” Chavez said.

After the Anaheim Angels changed their name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim last week, the city sued the Angels for breach of contract, alleging the violation of a stadium lease provision that requires the team name to “include the name Anaheim therein.”

The city failed to obtain the temporary restraining order that would have immediately stopped the team from using the new name. The next court date is Jan. 21, when the city will seek the preliminary injunction that would block the name change pending a trial. City Atty. Jack White will brief the council in closed session today.

“I expected to see better language in the contract than what I saw,” Chavez said. “Anybody reading that language would say that language is not very strong. How did we wind up with such vague language on something that was so vitally important? There’s got to be some accountability here.”

Mayor Curt Pringle said he remained confident the city would prevail in court.

“I have no doubts we will win,” he said.

The case could turn on whether the court interprets the lease strictly as written or considers the intent of the parties negotiating the lease. The team, arguing the lease speaks for itself, filed motions Friday asking the court to toss out significant amounts of evidence in the declarations filed by city officials involved in the 1996 lease negotiations, including White, former city manager James Ruth and former mayor Tom Daly.

The city contends that neither it nor Walt Disney Co., then the team owner, discussed identifying the team with a city or other geographical area besides Anaheim. If the Angels’ motions are granted, the city would be significantly hampered in its ability to present evidence of that contention.

The Angels’ lead counsel, Todd Theodora, noted in Friday’s court hearing that the city did not provide a declaration from Disney officials. The city plans to include such a declaration -- and file its objections to the Angels’ motions -- in advance of the Jan. 21 hearing.

Although the Dodgers and the Los Angeles City Council each have expressed opposition to the Angels’ name change, and although council President Alex Padilla twice has directed City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo to explore whether Los Angeles could -- and should -- line up behind Anaheim in court, neither the Dodgers nor the city of Los Angeles has done so.

“I haven’t heard from either of them that they’re getting involved,” said Mike Rubin, Anaheim’s lead counsel. “I don’t think they are going to join the case.”

Delgadillo still is looking into the issue, said his spokesman, Katie Buckland. Dodger senior vice president Howard Sunkin said the team had made no decision.

In court filings Friday, the Angels included excerpts from the Major League Baseball constitution and operating rules in which the Dodgers are granted territorial rights to “Orange, Ventura and Los Angeles counties ... provided, however, that this territory shall be shared with the Anaheim franchise in the American League.”

In a court hearing Friday, Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Polos asked whether Major League Baseball might reject the name change. Angel attorney William Shearer said that Commissioner Bud Selig had approved the new name “several months ago” and in any case that league rules do not require permission for a name change.

“This is a fait accompli with Major League Baseball,” Theodora said.

The Angels filed suit against Anaheim in 1983, igniting a dispute over parking lot development rights that extended until 1995. The city ultimately paid a $13-million settlement and spent more than $8 million in legal costs. Although no one expects such a protracted court fight this time, council members are mindful that the city is paying $364.25 per hour to Rubin, of the Costa Mesa law firm Rutan and Tucker.

“Spending 10, 20 or even 30 thousand dollars is negligible,” Councilman Harry Sidhu said. “It’s a no-brainer. Six months from now, we might be looking at it differently.”

But Sidhu also said he believed the city’s attorneys might have taken Friday’s hearing too lightly.

“Our legal team will present our case much more professionally next time,” he said. “We need to be really well-prepared. I think maybe there were some surprises, and I have a feeling our attorneys were a little overconfident.”

Councilwoman Lorri Galloway said the city would not back down before the Jan. 21 hearing.

“I believe the entire City Council is unified in that,” she said. “I’m certainly not ready or willing to throw in the towel now.”

Beyond then, however, the council appears split. Pringle said it is far too soon to consider a settlement or exit strategy.

“You really have barely gotten to first base,” he said. “It’s important to move all the way through the process.”

Galloway, however, said the council might not do so if it isn’t in the best interest of city taxpayers.

“We don’t want to go in circles to the detriment of the citizens, the team and the sports community,” she said. “This isn’t going to be a thing where we’ll take it to the end regardless.”