Information on the lawsuit & Conclusion
July 8, 2009, U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw dismissed all issues of the suit against Mrs. Rexford except the issue of of Civil Rights, which the judge said could not be determined without a trial.
“Information About the Lawsuit ”
On July 8, 2009, U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw dismissed all issues of the suit against Ms. Rexford except the issue of Civil Rights, “Credibility determination, the weighing of evidence and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the fact are jury functions, not those of a judge,(when) he is ruling on a motion for sumary judgement.”
For the same reason, the judge did not dismiss the charge of abuse of power against the City. However, unlike his decision with respect to Mrs. Rexford, the judge DID NOT dismiss the charge against the City of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Infringment fo Civil Rights.
The fact that Judge Sabraw dismissed the allegations of Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress against Mrs. Rexford but not against the City makes the clearest possible case that Mrs. Rexford’s complaints about her neighbors not complying with building codes and ordinances were legitimate and that the City’s actions in that regard were highly questionable.
The judge said that “credibility determinations in the weighing of evidence and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge when ruling on a motion.”
Since Mrs. Rexford was required by law to refrain from voting on the building code violations and discussing it at City Council sessions, it is clear that it was her City Council colleagues who decided to enforce the code against the plaintiffs, not Mrs. Rexford. “I don’t understand why my colleagues blame me for precipitating the lawsuit when it was they who continued to pursue the building code violations. It just isn’t logical,” said Mrs. Rexford.
In explaining its reason for paying off the plaintiffs in order to settle the lawsuit, the City issued the following statement: “Settlement is necessary to protect the city from greater exposure to damages and significant future legal costs if the case goes to trial.”
The City made its decision to settle without consulting with Mrs. Rexford who wanted the case to be tried because she believed that she would have been exonerated of the single remaining allegation. Mrs. Rexford’s insurance company also settled the suit over her objections. However, despite the urging of friends and neighbors she was unable to pursue the case due to lack of financial resources.
The City’s statement continued: “Further it is clearly inappropriate for any City Councilmember to interfere in the City’s administrative functions….and that even the appearance the Councilmember acted in her self interest is unacceptable….Therefore, it is with great sadness that we ask Councilmember Rexford to consider stepping down from her position on the Poway City Council.”
”It is remarkable that the City issued this public statement despite the fact that not only was the charge of abuse of process never proved, but also it was made against the City as well as against Rexford. However, for reasons of their own, the City seized on the fact that the charge was not (and legally could not be) dismissed to justify their decision to settle and to ask me to consider resigning.” said Mrs. Rexford. She added: “Settling the case was probably a good strategy for the City, but their decision to settle combined with their unwarranted public condemnation of me has damaged my reputation and caused emotional suffering for me and my family. Without financial resources, I am unable to prove that the allegations are untrue ”
Mrs. Rexford said that she understood that other members of the City Council wanted to distance themselves from the negative effects of spending a half million dollars and not winning the case and that in such cases people typically looked for someone to blame for their lack of success.
“I like to think that faced with the same problem I would have done the right thing and not taken the easy way out and deserted my fellow City Council Members,” said Mrs. Rexford.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
PLAINTIFFS
Allen Basile, an individual
Dawn Basile, an individual
Nathan Cannon, an individual
Rachel Cannon, an individual
vs DEFENDANTS
City of Poway, a California Municipal Corp
Betty Rexford, an individual
Paul Rexford, an individual
Niall Fritz, an individual
Allen Basile, Plaintiff claim Malicious Prosecution Paul & Betty Rexford. Granted
Allen Basile, Plaintiff claim False Arrest Paul Rexford. Denied
Nathan & Rachel Cannon Negligent Infliction Emotional Distress of Municipal Defendants. Granted
All Plaintiffs Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Paul & Betty Rexford Granted
All Plaintiffs Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress City of Poway Denied
All Plaintiffs Civil Rights All Defendants Denied
All Plaintiffs Conspiracy All Defendants Granted
All Plaintiffs Inverse Condemnation The City Granted