Other Sections
One (8/22/89 thru 4/19/94) -
Two (6/10/96 only) -
Three (thru 9/19/96)
Five (thru 8/10/98) -
Six (thru 10/26/98) -
Seven (thru 4/14/99)
Eight (thru 6/24/99) -
Nine (thru 9/8/99) -
Ten (second complaint)
Eleven (thru 12/27/99) -
Twelve (thru 7/25/00) -
Thirteen (thru 10/9/00)
Fourteen (thru 9/11/01) -
Fifteen (thru 10/1/02) -
Sixteen (thru 1/19/03)
Seventeen (to present)
*** 10/31/96 (48-49)
Article in Georgetown Gazette.
Page 1 -
Page 2
States that on Oct. 10, Steve C. filed a $3 million dollar lawsuit against
the County, Janet Atwood, Bill Allen, Michael Stoltz, George Cuttrell,
Bill Pieper, James McKeehan, Harry Berberich, Michael Amerian, Cindy Klinger,
Bruce Klinger, Bob O'Hara, Lester Braithewaite, and a hundred others involved
in a conspiracy to ruin his private business. Freda Pechner had taken the
case on a contingency. The defendants referred the suit to Caulfield,
Davies, and Donahue.
3/12/97 (49.01-49.10)
Josef Treiber (Treiber Enterprises) submits proposal to County for FBO
at Georgetown Airport.
*** 3/12/97 (50-52)
Letter from Michael Stoltz to Steve C.
Page 1 -
Page 2 -
Page 3
States that interim campground policy has been approved by DOT for airports
[Since Placerville has no campground this means Georgetown only.] and will
be in effect until it is approved by BOS. Also states Aiport Commission
has approved submission of an improvement project preapplication to FAA
which includes pond relocation... Therefore no artificial water is to be
added to pond. [The interim policy was not approved and therefore not
legally binding. The pond item was a ploy to prevent the use of the pond
in the summer season when it is filled for campers who fly in - this was a
way to discourage Steve's way of making a living.]
7/1/97 (52.01-52.02)
Letter from Trish Cimmarusti to Janet Atwood regarding problems with
women's restroom.
1. Left message on your machine last Tuesday that toilet backed up and that
plumber should be called as roto-rooter was insufficient.
2. Thursday, the "Out of Order" sign was still in place, so I opened the
door to see if anything had been done.
3. Found that newly painted walls were splattered with 3/4 of way up with
plumbers' grease and more, floor covered with sandy grit and dirt. It
appeared that plumber had replaced pipe underneath.
4. Next morning asked Brian [Brian Burgess] if plumber was done. Brian said
plumber was to let him know when he was finished and that he was sure
plumber would clean up mess when finished.
5. Saturday still no word from Brian and bathroom was the same. Called your
office and Dave (Dave Nicolls) said he had flushed the toilet and it worked
so he assumed plumber was done.
6. Am writing this letter because I spent close to 2 hours cleaning up the
plumber's mess and think that 2 hours should be deducted from plumber's
bill.
7. Brian never informed me whether or not plumber was finished and even
after looking at the bathroom, Dave simply left without telling me that
plumber was done.
8. As usual, this is very unprofessional of the county representatives,
Dave's tone of voice was rude and seemed agitated that I should ask such
questions. I am frustrated! How can I do a job without the County's
cooperation and communication?
7/15/97 (52.03-52.04)
Letter from plumber (Conforti Plumbing & Land Hoe) to Janet Atwood.
1. This is in response to Trish Cimmarusti's letter.
2. The plumber found sewage had been seeping from toilet base and a short
vent pipe behind wall. There were no clean-outs for snake. He pulled out
the toilet and found the closet flange was deteriorated. I called Brian
to get authorization to change the flange. Brian said to do so and we did
so that day.
3. Snaking the line caused spray out on side walls. It would be advisable
to have a clean-out installed in the line. The plumber finished and wiped
down the walls with toilet paper as he had no cleaning supplies with him.
Many customers do want to pay for clean-up. We tried to find someone to
ask as whether clean-up was necessary, but found no one.
4. Brian called about mess and I told him I would talk to plumber and get
back to him. Two days later, Brian called again, but I had not had time to
talk to the plumber. I was not aware that there was a question about the
job being completed. Plumber never saw the "out of order" sign.
5. I apologize for not notifying you immediately. The plumber had a busy
schedule that day.
[This is given as a typical case of County cooperation with the
Cimmarustis.]
7/22/97 (52.05)
Letter from Sandy Green to Janet Atwood on Treiber contract.
1. I understand that BOS adopted Minimum Standards and insurance requirements
were included in the Request for FBO at the Georgetown Airport.
2. This policy is now 3 years old and minimum insurance requirements are
probably inadequate, particularly since contract is to extend for 5 years.
3. At this point it may not be possible to increase limits without writing a
new proposal. However, I suggest the department discuss higher limits with
the contractor.
4. Lists limits which have gone from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in two cases
and from $300,000 to $500,000 in others.
5. If it is impossible to increase limits in this case, next FBO should
have limits increased.
[Here is an obvious case of poor County coordination because (a) no
attempt
was made to begin the process of changing the Minimum Standards, (b) no
one even mentioned that fact all FBO contracts must, by law, be the same as
to the minimums, and (c) no new type of contract was created to allow the
upgrading of FBO contracts according to the Minimum Standards.]
7/29/97 (52.06)
Letter from DOT to Treiber. Enclosed are two copies of final version of
lease agreement. Please review and, if acceptable, sign and return them
with documents required.
7/31/97 (52.07)
Letter from DOT to Trish Cimmarusti.
1. We are in receipt of your letter regarding restroom repair.
2. We regret the confusion and have attached a written reponse from
the plumbing contractor.
3. We will try in the future to have better commmunications with you
when repairs are performed.
[Over thirty days overdue with no real improvement except an
empty promise.]
8/28/97 (52.08)
Letter from DOT to Treiber. Reference FBO lease agreement.
1. Have received formal notification that Pieper will not be complying
with County's direction to vacate the Hangar by 9/1/97, but will be out
by 9/5/97.
2. County will explore legal options, but probably won't be able to have
Pieper out any sooner.
3. We sent you insurance binder to Risk Manager. Upon her approval
will present lease to Dept Director for signature.
4. It is prudent that lease become effective 9/8/97 and lease payment
for Sept be prorated accordingly.
9/8/97 (52.09)
Memo from David Nicolls to Skyways (Cimmarustis).
1. This regards campground policy.
2. In discussion with Mr. Pesses of DOT on this date, he related that
policy issued by Stoltz is in force.
3. County will notify you if any changes are made...
*** 9/18/97 (53-57)
Letter to Louis Green from attorney [name blacked out] for seven people.
Page 1 -
Page 2 -
Page 3 -
Page 4 -
Page 5
[The following is composed of the exact words found in the document
and is placed here so that the reader can more easily see what the text
is. Areas shown as [XXXXX] are areas blacked out by the County prior to
giving them to the Friends of the Georgetown Airport.]
Re: Stephen G. Cimmarusti, d.b.a. Skyways and Blacksheep v.
[XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]
Tender of defense re: [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]
in the above captioned case.
[This appears to be a successful attempt by McKeehan's attorney to force the County to pay McKeehan's legal bill. Note that although there were attempts to disguise the defendant by blacking out his name, he is mentioned often as the Planning Commissioner and in one place by his name - where someone failed to black it out.
If the County does not acknowledge that McKeehan was at the June 3 meeting for a legitimate and legal reason while working for the County, the County will be admitting that the meeting was an illegal attempt to rid them of Steve. Since the County is forced to acknowledge McKeehan as being on County business, the County must pay his legal bills. However, in the course of this presentation, you will note that issues other than McKeehan's presence at the meeting of 6/3/96 were involved in the litigation to come and that it is doubtful that the County had a legal right to have paid for McKeehan's defense.
Since there are many blacked out areas due to County censoring, this document presents a simple puzzle for the reader to fill in the blanks. Also, you will note that the attorney filled in many otherwise unknown areas within the history, by so clearly outlining Steve's case and the motives of the people who are being accused.
The bold print was not bold in the original document. It has been added to allow the reader to more closely view the bold portions. Any errors in grammar or punctuation were left as they were in the original.]
As you know, I am representing [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] and six other individual defendants in the above captioned case.
Your office file will no doubt reflect that on Novemebr 25, 1996, I made an early tender of[XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]efense as an El Dorado Planning Commissioner relative to the above-captioned case. It was, as you know, rejected.
Since that time of course, almost ten months has elapsed and discovery has been undertaken by the respective sides to the above entitled case. At the time I made the earlier tender, I wrote to Tom Parker of your office. I had just gotten into both the above-captioned case and also [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] Unlawful Detainer action against Stephen G. Cimmarusti (plaintiff here), and obviously because of the factual intensity of those two cases there was a good deal that I had yet to learn.
Discovery in this case to date can be briefly summarized as follows, the depositions of some of the other county employees, including Deputy Sheriff, William R. Allen, Head of the Department of Transportation, Michael Stoltz, EDC Aiports Manager Janet Atwood, EDC Airport Commissioner William Pieper, and Supervisor Walt Shultz.
I have also gained insight into the Plaintiff's claims in preparing and trying [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] Stephen G. Cimmarusti wherein [XXXXXXXXXXXX]as given notice by the County of El Dorado on August 28, 1996, that it regarded Mr. Cimmarusti as an unsuitable FBO and essentially demanded that [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]steps to evict Mr. Cimmarusti for all of the reasons specified in the "Notice of 30 day termination of FBO Agreement."
I now assert [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]and to the County for a defense as a Defendant in the captioned case, as a Planning Commissioner, a named Defendant and as a named "County Official" in the original governmental tort claim filed with the County by Plaintiff's counsel on June 13, 1996.
As you know Mr. Green, you and I had briefly discussed this matter approximately a month ago and unfortunately the press of two fast trials in Superior Court coupled with a period of inactivity on the subject litigation have resulted in my not getting back to you until this point in time. That delay must not infer any lack of conviction that his tender is appropriate and must be accepted by El Dorado County.
Undoubtedly from the County's retained counsel in this case, you are well aware that our trial has been continued from its original October 1, 1997 trial setting, reclassified as Plan II case, and has been rescheduled for trial between February 15, 1998, and March 15, 1998, at the South Lake Tahoe branch of the Court.
[XXXXXXXXXXXXXX]s earlier action is unrelated to this one is made eminently clear by the timing of the governmental tort claim in this matter which was filed by Ms. Pechner on June 13, 1996, a copy of which I attach for your convenience. You will note that claim specifically alleges th[XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]raph 7th of page 2 of the letter) engaged in unfair competition and soliciting or achieving favoritism in the County of El Dorado with respect to the leases of land.
Further, in paragraph 10th[XXXXXXXXXXXX]n is alleged to have stated in front of numerous witnesses that with the assistance of his powerful friends (Plaintiff's counsel has alluded to and will attempt, no doubt, to prove that as Planning Commissioner appointed by Walt Shultz a Co-Defendant here and a member of the present Board of Supervisors) tha[XXXXXXXXXXXX]ould employ "those powerful friends," to put Plaintiff out of business allegedly by those matters, plotted and planned at the June 3rd meeting.
The Plaintiff's claim must be viewed as being directly connected with [XXXXXXXXXXXXXX]ivities as Planning Commissioner not only because of the allegations of favorable treatment of him by the County of El Dorado, but because of his position as Planning Commissioner lead to his being in the ordinance review meeting of June 3, 1996. I believe those claims although unfounded as they are nevertheless make clear the duty on the part of the County of El Dorado to defend [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]to reimburse him for the expense in the defense of himself of the above captioned action to date. A good deal of what I have learned is as a result of the evidence put on by the defense, argument of counsel and factual assertions made in the case o[XXXXXXXXXXXXX] Cimmarusti, in Unlawful Detainer, and although while that case does not bear on or have connection with the Countys obligation to defend James McKeehan in the above-captioned case, nevertheless, there are factual matters which are common to both cases and I therefore mention it for that reason.
I know that to the extent possible under the law and the evidence that, while weak, Defendant will put forth those claims and allegations, if not factually at least in counsel's argument. The unlawful detainer case has given us a forecast of what the Plaintiff asserts against[XXXXXXXXX] as an "appointee" and the other Defendants and the County of El Dorado in the upcoming trial.
You have no doubt seen and I attach hereto for your convenience, a copy of a press release from the Georgetown Crier of October 31, 1996, when Plaintiff Cimmarusti initially filed his lawsuit. You will note in the article about midway the press release states that his problems began when Walt Shultz became Supervisor, commissioners were named and appointed, among the comments which Cimmarusti alleges that were made, were that "individuals would do anything possible to put us out of business." Those claims set forth in that newspaper, nevertheless have a "familiar ring," akin to the allegations in the subject action. Specifically the Plaintiff's claim that through evidence which I can only summarize for you briefly which has been elicited in depositions, written discovery, and earlier trial that a meeting was held June 3rd, 1996, at which there were present Deputy County Counsel Tom Parker, Airports Manager Janet Atwood, Supervisor Walt Shultz, and Planning Commissioner [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]It has not escaped the Plaintiff's attention that the meeting was attended by my client [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] course as a Planning Commissioner had a hand in suggesting that meeting which took place to follow through on the general plan adoption by bringing codes and ordinances into conformity with the new General Plan. Also in attendance was[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]for Mr. Shultz's district. My clients interest at that time in the setting of that meeting was that once the general plan had been established and approved that there were numerous County ordinances including Title 18 Airports which were badly in need of being brought into conformity with the County General Plan and the policy announced therein.
The discovery in this case has indeed revealed that the Plaintiff intends to carry out the initial allegations of his governmental claim that [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] Planning Commission appointee, having "powerful friends" in other words, Supervisor Walt Shultz, was not only able to curry the County's favor and obtain leases of airport commercial parcels which the Plaintiff could not, and which leases to McKeehan he alleges were in violation of long established county policy were improper and in violation of state law "with unusual provisions that benefit only [XXXXXXXXXXX] ...," but will attempt to show that the June 3rd meeting called for the purpose I mention above was really called for the purpose of evicting Plaintiff Cimmarusti.
The Plaintiff, of course alleges in his complaint filed October 5, 1996, paragraph 2, page 5, that [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]s a duly appointed Planning Commissioner for District IV, having been appointed by Supervisor Walt Shultz shortly after his election and that[xxxxxxxxxxxxx]erved as campaign manager for Shultz in his 1994 election to his position. In paragraph 14, on page 3, while the gist of that charge is that the County, Stoltz, and Cuttrell, employees of the County of El Dorado Department of Transportation denied plaintiff assignment of the lease on a residential dwelling at the Georgetown Airport no doubt under the agency and conspiracy allegations of the plaintiff's complaint that allegations could easily be pointed at[XXXXXXXXXXXX] On page 4, paragraph 18, the Plaintiff is again alleging that favoritism was shown to Defendant [XXXXXXXXXXXXX] reason of his position on the Planning Commission, not being required to commence building on a plot of County land within six months of entering the lease, the thrust of that charge being that Cimmarusti should have had the parcel made available to him and that he was therefore deprived of the same and damaged again because of[XXXXXXXXXXXXXX]sition as Planning Commissioner. Next on page 5, paragraph 21, the charges made that Defendant [XXXXXXXXXXX]eatened to put plaintiff "out of business" with the assistance of his "powerful friends" referring specifically to Supervisor Shultz, Atwood, Allen, Thomas Parker, El Dorado County Deputy Kevin House, and Stoltz.
Again, although it may be somewhat remote to say that [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] facing that charge as a result of his Planning Commissioner activities, it remains [XXXXXXXXXXXXXX] position that he would not be in this suit in the first place but for his activities as a Planning Commissioner and specifically participating in the June 3, 1996, meeting.
At page 5, paragraph 24, of course, that very meeting is alleged and we believe that [XXXXXXXXXXXX] has been drug into this because of his activities in that meeting.
I think it extremely important that it be appreciated that the June 3, 1996, meeting is what at least in part precipitated the government claim seven days later and that [XXXXXXXXXXXXX] would not have been at that meeting save for and except for his activities and interest in his role as Planning Commissioner. There were no members of the public at that meeting. It was solely for the various County agencies represented there including Supervisor Shultz.
As you well know, Mr. Green, the established principals are clear. The obligation of a principal to indemnify his agent for expenditures or losses incurred in the discharged of his authorized duties is eminently clear, 2 Witkin, Summary of California State Law, 9th Edtion, Sec. 67, et seq. It is only where the loss arise from the acts of agents which are unauthorized or negligent and under the evidence developed in the case at bar, that does not appear to be the case.
It can scarcely be denied that the governmental claim statute following so closely behind the June 3, 1996, meeting, which is acknowledged by all who attended, was prompted at least in part in retaliation for it. Clearly the allegations of the complaint followed the averments set forth in the governmental claim of June 13 and the press release of October 31, 1996.
The evidence which the Plaintiffs possess from their vantage point, is that the meeting was attended by[XXXXXXXXXXXXXX]he subjects that were advanced at the meeting were the enforcement or lack thereof were the Countys enforcement of Title 18, and the empowerment and the need for changes in the airport ordinance. Those matters having been discussed, the result seems to have been that the county was prompted to initiate the notice of August 28, 1996, to Mr. McKeehan.
In sum, I feel it is abundantly clear that the County must come forward to represen[XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] Your sincere consideration of this issue is very much appreciated. Please let me hear from you.
Very truly yours,
[XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]
