North County
04/15/08 09:00AM N-04 CV
Settlement
Conf GIN058581
P)ERYN ARNOLD
THOMAS TOSDAL
North County
02/01/08 01:30PM N-28 CV
Orfield, Michael B.
Motion Hearing GIN058581
P) ERYN ARNOLD
THOMAS TOSDAL
04/15/08 09:00AM N-04 CV
Settlement
Conf GIN058581
P)ERYN ARNOLD
THOMAS TOSDAL
North County
02/01/08 01:30PM N-28 CV
Orfield, Michael B.
Motion Hearing GIN058581
P) ERYN ARNOLD
THOMAS TOSDAL
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| For updates, see San Diego Education Report Blog. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Attorney Thomas Tosdal Thomas L. Tosdal Tosdal, Smith, Steiner & Wax 600 B Street, Suite 2100 San Diego, CA 92101-4508 619-239-7200 |
Central
02/29/08 11:00AM C-70
CV Bloom, Jay M.
Demurrer / Moti
37-2007-00077350-CU-PO-C
TL P)Haley Colombo
02/29/08 11:00AM C-70
CV Bloom, Jay M.
Demurrer / Moti
37-2007-00077350-CU-PO-C
TL P)Haley Colombo
 |
 |
 |
| Partners of Thomas Tosdal Ann Smith Fern M. Steiner Fern Steiner was paid $20,000 by California Teachers Association to represent a San Diego teacher in an Office of Administrative Hearings case, but she quit the case just before the scheduled hearing. Then CTA paid $40,000 for another lawyer (who was not chosen by CTA). CTA obviously doesn't mind throwing around money, and it doesn't mind paying lawyers from outside it's stable of favorites. But it keeps its purse strings tightly closed when there's a chance that a case will expose wrongdoing by CTA. In Maura Larkins' case, CTA refused to pay a dime for a lawyer outside of its usual stable. The real reason? CTA could count on Marianne Reinhold to sabotage her client on CTA's behalf, but it was afraid that another lawyer might actually obey the law regarding professional ethics of lawyers. Ms. Steiner and the Water Authority |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| REGION: Judge nixes $900M fire settlement SDG&E says claims over $1.1B could lead to rate hikes By TERI FIGUEROA - tfigueroa@nctimes.com May 7, 2009 SAN DIEGO ---- A proposed $900 million settlement between insurance companies and the power utility blamed for causing massive wildfires in 2007 got a thumbs down Thursday from a trial judge, although he said all sides should keep talking. Attorneys for individual homeowners said the rejection staved off a potential minefield for their clients, because the proposal would have prevented their clients from recouping all of their losses in the wildfires. Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss turned down the proposed settlement between the insurers and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., saying that what they wanted him to do was resolve a contested legal matter using rules that govern mundane procedural issues. Down the road, the outcome of the lawsuits may have a very real effect on customers. SDG&E officials have said ---- and the utility's attorneys told the judge Thursday ---- that rates may go up if the company has to dip in operating costs or shareholder money to pay off fire-related claims. After the hearing in a San Diego courtroom, SDG&E spokeswoman Stephanie Donovan said it is "way too early for anybody to say how much rates would be going up or if rates would be going up." She said the utility wants to keep rates low, and that settling the suits would be "in the best interest of all." SDG&E has a $1.1 billion pot of insurance money to cover claims related to the wildfires. Any settlements beyond that amount have the potential to fall on the backs of ratepayers through price hikes. Claims from the insurance companies alone ---- which are trying to recoup what they have paid out to victims --- total $1.5 billion. Under the proposed settlement, the insurers would have accepted $900 million from SDG&E to recoup their payouts. Attorneys for the fire victims fought the settlement. Some argued that it would drain the settlement pot before their clients got their cut, others argued that proposal would bar homeowners from recovering all of their losses, and that it would have let SDG&E off the hook. "We don't care if the insurers settle," said attorney Tom Tosdal, who represents homeowners and other individual fire victims. "They just can't settle to the detriment of the individuals who they insure." The insurance companies and the utility, however, argued that the proposed settlement was simple fairness, that it would have prevented homeowners from trying to double dip, recouping losses from both the insurance company and then SDG&E. The two sides can still make the $900 million deal, but they would be gambling that homeowners won't still win large settlements from the utility. State fire officials have concluded that SDG&E's power lines sparked the Witch Creek, Guejito and Rice Canyon fires in late October 2007. SDG&E has said fierce Santa Ana winds were to blame. |
Fired hospital executives file suit against Tri-City district, officials By Keith Darcé Union-Tribune Staff Writer July 21, 2009 OCEANSIDE — A group of former Tri-City Medical Center executives has sued the public health district that operates the hospital and four of its board members for more than $7 million, claiming the administrators were wrongly fired and defamed. The lawsuit, filed last week in Vista Superior Court, is the latest salvo in a battle that started Dec. 18 when a newly elected majority of the Tri-City Healthcare District placed nine administrators on leave and launched an investigation into hospital finances and operations. An attorney who represents one of the board members named in the suit said the allegations are politically motivated and have no legal foundation. The lawyer representing the district and other board members had not fully reviewed the suit and wasn't able to comment on it, said Tri-City spokesman Jeff Segall. The board in late April fired eight of the administrators and reached a termination settlement with former chief executive Arthur Gonzalez, who received a severance with a potential value of more than $1 million. The other executives received no severance pay; board members said those executives were fired for reasons allowed under their employment contracts. The lawsuit names seven plaintiffs: Allen Coleman, former vice president of business and development; Robert Wardwell, former vice president and chief financial officer; Doreen Sanderson, vice president of human relations; Suellyn Ellerbe, vice president, chief operating officer and chief nurse executive; Terry Howell, vice president of performance improvement; Ondrea Labella, director of patient accounting; and Daniel Groszkruger, director of legal services. The suit targets the district and the four board members who made up the new voting majority that orchestrated the dismissals: Kathleen Sterling, RoseMarie Reno, Charlene Anderson and George Coulter. Larry Anderson, the district's current administrator, also is listed as a defendant. The suit claims that the firings violated several state laws protecting employees from wrongful termination and guaranteeing due process. It also accuses board members of defaming the fired executives in comments made concerning the controversy. San Diego attorney Tom Tosdal, who represents Sterling, said his client and the other board members are being targeted because critics perceive them as being more friendly to unions representing hospital workers. All four of the board members received campaign contributions from the unions during their election campaigns last fall. “I think this is more of a continuation of the labor union battles,” Tosdal said. |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |