Portions of councilmen’s case against P.I. withstand appellate review
A Santa Ana appellate court issued a ruling this week that could move a conspiracy lawsuit filed by two Costa Mesa councilmen closer to trial.
-------------
FOR THE RECORD
8:57 a.m., May 11: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that the conspiracy lawsuit was against two Costa Mesa councilmen. The lawsuit was filed by two Costa Mesa councilmen.
---------------
Associate justices from the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana ruled Monday that a private investigator’s alleged use of a GPS device to monitor Mayor Steve Mensinger’s truck in the 2012 election did not constitute free speech. The investigator’s reported near-miss with his car on Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer’s wife, Lene, is not a protected act either, the justices wrote.
The ruling set aside those two claims as matters that could go to trial in Orange County Superior Court as part of the conspiracy lawsuit — filed in 2013 by Mensinger and the Righeimers — that alleges harassment and intimidation against them throughout the 2012 election season.
The suit names the Costa Mesa Police Assn., its law firm at the time and the firm’s private investigator, Chris Lanzillo.
“Ultimately, we’re sitting in a very good position, and we’re happy with it,” said Vince Finaldi, the councilmen’s attorney. “We’re eager to move this case along. It’s been stagnating enough.”
He said interviews with witnesses and other evidence could show malice on the part of Lanzillo, the police union and the firm, Upland-based Lackie, Dammeier, McGill and Ethir, which has since dissolved.
Conversely, the justices were less sure about the lawsuit’s assertions that Lanzillo was not within his First Amendment rights to report Righeimer for drunk driving after he spotted Righeimer leaving a fellow councilman’s bar and restaurant in August 2012.
The justices ruled the lower Superior Court was incorrect to have ruled otherwise, a decision that now places the burden on the plaintiffs to prove that Lanzillo’s actions were wrongful, intentional and malicious.
If they cannot, those claims could get dismissed from the case altogether.
As it turned out, Righeimer was not driving impaired, having passed a field sobriety test outside his Mesa Verde home.
After calling police and following Righeimer, Lanzillo watched from his vehicle and was approached by Lene, who stepped in front of his car and asked him to identify himself.
Lanzillo did not and drove away close enough to her “that she felt the heat of the tire and the wind of the car’s movement as it passed, putting her in imminent fear of grave bodily harm,” according to the complaint, which calls the act “assault.”
The police association fired the firm shortly after the incident with Righeimer and has claimed no prior knowledge of the firm’s or Lanzillo’s actions. The union asked the firm to conduct opposition research on the councilmen in 2012, an election year.
Stephen Larson, representing Lanzillo and Lackie, Dammeier, said the justices’ ruling showed some favor for his clients because it recognized that some of their actions were protected under the law.
“We look forward to further proceedings before the trial court,” he said.
Sy Everett, the police union’s attorney, also saw the justices’ ruling as positive for Costa Mesa’s rank-and-file officers.
“The Court of Appeal made the right decision,” he wrote in a statement Tuesday. “The [association] is very pleased with the ruling and expects to win at the trial court level.”
Everett also said the association plans to file a cross-complaint against Lanzillo and Lackie, Dammeier, which would make those two parties liable for any legal fees and damages occurred on the union.
Everett and Finaldi said they don’t plan to protest to the state Supreme Court the parts of the justices’ decision that were not in their favor.
Larson said his clients haven’t made a decision in that regard.
An Orange County district attorney’s office criminal case against Lanzillo and alleged accomplice Scott Impola also is ongoing.
