Facts

Defendant Eduardo Olivo was the former city attorney for the city of Vernon (the City). After he was terminated in 2004, the City filed a complaint alleging violation of the false claims act, intentional torts and several claims for legal malpractice. Prior to trial, all of the City's causes of action were resolved in favor of Defendant Eduardo Olivo, except for one cause of action for legal malpractice in which the City alleged that Mr. Olivo was negligent in failing to advise the City or timely file suit against Kenko Construction Company and its surety Hartford Accident & Indemnity (HIAC) for construction defects in the installation of a pipeline.

Olivo filed a cross-complaint against the City, its city council members, mayor, city administrator, and city attorney and general counsel alleging causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of government code §12653 (false claims act), wrongful termination in violation of public policy in labor code § 1102.5, wrongful termination in violation of public policy in government code §9149.20 (whistleblower protection act), breach of employment agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, violation of statute (government code §1090), slander per se, violation of right of privacy and declaratory relief.

PLAINTIFF'S/CROSS-DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The City contended that Olivo breached the standard of care by failing to advise it of the applicable statute of limitations for suit against Kendo Construction and HIAC. The City further argued that Olivo was paid in full for services rendered and that Olivo was given written notification of termination pursuant to their written agreement.

The demurrers of all of the cross-defendants except for the City were sustained without leave to amend. A motion for summary judgment was filed by cross-defendant City and it was granted as to all causes of action except for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Cross-defendant City contended that Olivo's action was brought in bad faith, and that he was owed no further monies due to his failure to perform as the city attorney and due to the fact that the City provided him with all of the notice required to terminate his agreement with the City.

DEFENDANT'S/CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant argued that he was not negligent in connection with the potential underlying claim against Kenko and that the City's employees were the cause of the purported construction defects. Olivo filed a cross-complaint that contended that cross-defendant City wrongfully terminated him from his employment, and breached its contract with Olivo by terminating him and failing to pay for his legal services.

Damages

According to Olivo counsel, Olivo claimed damages in the amount of $82,852. According to City's counsel, Olivo claimed damages in excess of $1 million.

Result

On the legal malpractice claim, the jury entered a unanimous verdict in favor of Defendant Olivo and against Plaintiff City of Vernon. On the cross-complaint, the jury entered a unanimous verdict in favor of Cross-Complainant Olivo and against the City of Vernon for an amount of $101,850.00.

Other Information

Several months before trial, the City of Vernon paid $108,275.14 of the amounts claimed by Olivo. Olivo was awarded an additional $101,850 by the jury at the conclusion of trial.