Seven minutes after I created this post I got an email from Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz saying, in so many words, that the black hole that mysteriously sucks up proposed orders and judge's orders at Stutz law firm had abated, and Stutz was able to find a letter mailed to the firm two days ago. (Or perhaps I should say that Stutz was able to admit that it had the letter in its possession.)
Two days ago I had served Stutz with a check for $3000 for sanctions. Judge Judith Hayes imposed the sanctions because I violated her shockingly unconstitutional PERMANENT injunction NEVER TO MENTION THE NAME OF STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ on my website.
Yesterday and today I asked Stutz, via phone calls and emails, if the check had arrived. After all my efforts, the only response I got was an email that said, "Who was it addressed to? That may make it easier to locate. Thank you. -- Richard"
Perhaps Richard was at a loss because his mentors Ray Artiano, Daniel Shinoff and Jeffrey Wade were not available to tell him whether or not to tell the truth about receiving my check. I'm guessing he was able to get an okay from one of them at around 2:28 p.m. today, so at last he told the truth in an email: "Please disregard my last e-mail, the check has arrived. Thank you. -- Richard"
This was the fifth incident, since Stutz law firm's defamation case against me began, that critically important documents in the case disappeared into the noxious ether that seems to permeate the firm's office.
NOTE TO JUDGE HAYES: This incident illustrates why we Americans keep the First Amendment to our Constitution. If law firms that represent public entities were free to cheat and lie, then government would become impossibly corrupt. Free speech keeps government honest, or at least it pushes it in that direction. We've got a long way to go until we actually have honest public entities, it seems. Why are you so intent on keeping the public ignorant of the truth about Stutz law firm?
Apparently when Leslie Devaney showed up at a Tri-City board meeting shortly after she and Ray Artiano were hired to represent fired executives, she managed to cause the board members to worry about possible Brown Act violations that, she said, could send them to jail.
Tri-City Medical Center has settled a lawsuit brought by a group of former hospital executives who alleged Tri-City violated the state's open meeting law, called the Brown Act, when four hospital board members put the executives on paid leave during a hastily called closed-door meeting in December 2008.
Ray Artiano, an attorney for the seven executives, said Thursday afternoon that Tri-City settled the case for $300,000, which will cover attorney's fees. The executives ---- who were later fired by Tri-City ---- have also filed a wrongful termination lawsuit that is still working its way through the courts.
Courtney Berlin, a spokesperson for Tri-City, confirmed the settlement in the Brown Act lawsuit this week. She said in an e-mail that it doesn't admit "any error on the part of our Board or any violation of the Brown Act."
"In order to preserve the company's resources, we felt it was appropriate to settle the matter," Berlin said.
Four of seven Tri-City board members voted during a special meeting on Dec. 8, 2008, to sideline the seven executives and call in an accounting firm to conduct a forensic investigation of the public hospital's books. Tri-City's former chief executive Arthur Gonzalez was put on leave during the same meeting.
In February 2009, the seven sued Tri-City's board, alleging it had violated several aspects of public meetings law.
The suit asked a Superior Court judge to declare the decision invalid, but more than one year later there had been no ruling in the case. Artiano said that when the suit was filed, there was some hope among the executives that a decision would come quickly and could result in them being reinstated.
In the intervening months, Gonzalez settled with the hospital district and found a new job running a large hospital system in Minneapolis.
In the wrongful termination lawsuits, the remaining executives are seeking more than $1 million each. Lawyers on both sides are now arguing whether the case belongs in federal or state court.
Artiano's clients include Doreen Sanderson, Tri-City's former vice president of human resources; Allen Coleman, former vice president of strategic services; Robert Wardwell, former chief financial officer; Daniel Groszkruger, former director of information systems; Ondrea Labella, former director of patient business services; Suellyn Ellerbe, former chief operating officer and chief nurse executive; and Terry Howell, former vice president of performance improvement.
Their salaries ranged from $194,000 to $325,000 per year.
While Artiano acknowledged that Tri-City has admitted no culpability with regard to open meetings law violations, he said the fact that the hospital settled means something.
"We thought the amount was sufficient to make a point, and now we will focus on the wrongful termination cases," Artiano said.
The Grossmont Union High School District board of trustees Thursday night went ahead with plans that could result in Helix High losing its agreement to operate as an independent charter school.
The board is concerned about the school’s handling of an administrator who is accused of aiding a student runaway.
The board voted 4-0 to issue a letter of intent to revoke the school’s charter and plans to hold a public hearing next month...
Helix High School supporters said they would fight to keep their charter and claimed that the district wants to control the school for financial reasons, which the board denies.
Board Chairwoman Cathy Singer said that if the district pulls Helix’s charter, the school could seek sponsorship from the county or state...
Despite its challenges, Helix High School last year was named a California Distinguished School, the second time in a decade that it has earned the honor.
ORIGINAL POST: Dan Shinoff explains why Helix High should lose its charter Attorney Dan Shinoff
Attorney Dan Shinoff is the person who refused to investigate when two teachers at Castle Park Elementary School in Chula Vista reported their belief that another teacher might come to school and shoot them (and everybody else). Shinoff's inaction ushered in a period of extreme instability at the school, which went through 11 principals in 11 years and a scandal when five teachers were transferred out of the school. In Grossmont High School District, Shinoff refused to hold a conference on school violence as requested by the parents of slain Santana High School students. So it seems fair to say that Shinoff isn't concerned much about either student safety or ferreting out the truth.
Shinoff's actions at Grossmont's Helix High charter seem to be about politics, pure and simple.
GUHSD Media Statement February 4, 2010 For Immediate Release The Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD) is placing an item on the February 11, 2010 Board Meeting agenda to consider the possible revocation of the Helix High School Charter. The item is being placed on the agenda due to continuing concerns by the GUHSD Board regarding the safety of Helix students... The Board Meeting agenda will be available online by 4 P.M. on Friday, February 5, 2010, at: LINK. All other questions regarding the GUHSD Board item in this matter should be referred to Daniel Shinoff, GUHSD Counsel, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz. He may be reached at: (619) 232-3122.
CHANNEL 10 NEWS REPORT District To Decide On Helix High School's Charter Status February 11, 2010 In a statement issued by Helix High School, officials accused the district of several things, including refusing to meet with them after well over five different attempts to discuss the district's concerns or to engage in the dispute resolution process required by the charter.
Singer said, "District reps have employed slander, innuendo and out-and-out lying in what we can only assume is an effort to damage the school for its own financial gain."...
SHINOFF SHOWS LITTLE CONCERN FOR YOUNGSTERS IN SEX ABUSE CASES
In Sweetwater Union High School District about ten years ago, Dan Shinoff defended the school when a mentally disabled girl was found having sex in a classroom. Shinoff said the girl wanted it.
Then there was the Fred Kamper case. Shinoff denied the girls were telling the truth, but eventually settled with at least one of the girls.
SHINOFF QUOTE FROM THE SALKA CASE
Winter 2005-06 - High School Censorship XXVII, No. 1 - Page 11
CALIFORNIA — The San Dieguito Union High School District has rejected a $1.5 million claim filed by the parents of a 16-year-old girl who posed in her underwear for photos in a high school literary magazine.
The claim sought damages for "defamation, invasion of privacy, inadequate supervision, sexual harassment and related damages all stemming from unauthorized nude photographs…" appearing in Torrey Pines High School’s Dialogue Spring 2005 First Flight.
...Dan Shinoff, the school district’s lawyer, said the entire claim is baseless.
"I think these youngsters knowingly participated in this issue," he said.
UPDATE: The San Diego Reader came out with a story today about Stutz client San Diego County Office of Education--SDCOE. In the Rodger Hartnett case, SDCOE has disobeyed court orders. Surely Stutz believes Superintendent Randolph Ward belongs in jail, or does Stutz simply think that its clients and itself are above the law, and only its opponents in civil law suits should be jailed (see below)?
UPDATE: REPLY TO STUTZ LAW FIRM
Richard E. Romero, Esq. Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC Dear Mr. Romero:
I am aghast at your message, sent by a public entity law firm.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz isn't interested in getting a determination of constitutionality before asking that an opponent in a civil case be jailed for 5 days?
And at the same time Stutz has demanded that I not be allowed to say that Stutz law firm has a habit of using the threat of jail against opponents in civil cases!
Have you no respect for the Constitution? Or for your obligation as an officer of the court not to use the justice system for your personal benefit?
Maura Larkins
UPDATE: STUTZ LAW FIRM REPLIES:
To: Maura Larkins Feb 3, 2010 RE: Meet and confer: Would your client object to a stay of proceedings in Stutz v. Larkins?
We object. -- Richard
Richard E. Romero, Esq.
ORIGINAL POST:
To: Richard Romero Feb 2, 2010 Meet and confer: Would your client object to a stay of proceedings in Stutz v. Larkins?
Hi Richard; I'm writing to find out if Stutz law firm objects to a stay of proceedings while I petition the Court of Appeal for a Writ of Prohibition/Mandate/Review.
Particularly since you are asking for sanctions including jail time, fines of $2500.00, a daily fee, and attorney's fees of over $$6500.00, it is an urgent matter to have the permanent injunction, which contains prior restraints that are tremendously broad in addition to having been interpreted by the court as extremely flexible and vague, submitted for examination by Court of Appeal.
I am planning to file an ex parte application asking for a stay of this proceeding while I appeal the constitutionality of the judge's rulings.
I got an email this morning from Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz telling me that they have scheduled an ex parte hearing for Thursday. They are asking the judge for appropriate sanctions "including jail time" to punish me for mentioning them on my website. It's true that Judge Judith Hayes is extremely fond of the folks at Stutz law firm, but--jail?
To Leslie Devaney, Dan Shinoff, Ray Artiano and Jim Holtz:
We must always be careful about what we wish for. What if the judge were to do as you suggest, and put me in jail? Surely the media would cover the case of the school teacher that went to jail at the request of school lawyers for the transgression of mentioning their name on her website.
Sincerely, Maura Larkins
P.S. Do you not know that we have a budget crisis in California? How much money do you want the taxpayers to spend to help you silence me? Aren't they already paying enough to your law firm?
The state action of placing Chino Valley Unified School District in PI (Program Improvement) status is a sad commentary on education for the CVUSD community. Basically, CVUSD failed to educate English-learner students based on AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) scores.
Wayne Joseph, the new CVUSD superintendent, must be repeating the words of Oliver Hardy from the comedy team of Laurel and Hardy - "Here's another fine mess you have gotten me into" - when thinking of former former superintendent Edmond Heatley's administrative management skills.
When the school board approved the closure of Gird, El Rancho and Los Serranos, the board was oblivious to the true reason behind the superintendent's recommendation. It was not savings vs. cost but to improve Heatley's chances to leave CVUSD. Heatley wanted three fewer PI schools on his resume. Three PI schools were eliminated but the English-learner students are our children, and they remained.
CVUSD had six PI schools and five were in danger of a state takeover. Each school was in the latter stage of a five-year improvement plan, and little progress had been made. After five years, the state of California has the option to take over a school. It was professionally unhealthy for a superintendent to be relieved of his responsibility of management; and there lies the reason for the unwise closures.
Although state mandates for student performance for categories such as English-learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, African-American students, Asian students, Latino students and special needs students are challenging, CVUSD should not be in PI status. If Upland USD, Walnut USD and Claremont USD are not in PI, then Chino Valley certainly should not be in PI status.
NCLB (No Child Left Behind) and state mandates are rising to irrational levels. There is a possibility other school districts will fall into PI status. But, CVUSD did not implement existing resources to avoid being placed in PI.
CVUSD's API (Academic Performance Index) scores are excellent. The school board gave Heatley raises based on API scores. That was a major mistake. A raise based on performance is a good idea, but performance should be assessed on a scale that is measurable and has balance (incentive).
Chino Valley USD is located in an area where high API scores occur due to factors of economics, education level of parents and parental involvement. All school districts have dedicated teachers giving their best effort to promote student achievement; that is the common thread among all school districts. The home environment of a student is the single most motivating factor regarding student achievement; of course there are rare exceptions. That is why some districts struggle with low scores and a school district like Chino Valley has high scores. Heatley was given raises based on factors he had absolutely nothing to do with in raising scores. The board missed that point in assessing Heatley on measurable factors.
The balance (incentive) factor is when a benefit is given for good performance, and a benefit is withheld when performance does not meet expectations. Heatley was given a raise based on an imbalanced assessment. A raise to a superintendent can never be taken back due to state law. The school board should have set another criterion to hold the superintendent accountable for performance.
When we review CVUSD catastrophes - the loss of $7.5 million in state funding due to two school sites not meeting state minimum minutes (CVUSD became a laughingstock in local and national news media); the loss of $947,404.62 in legal fees to Lewis Operating Corp. on the Preserve fiasco; the loss in legal fees to Dan Shinoff and law firm of $609,164.72 to represent CVUSD on the Preserve fiasco; placing legal counsel under the authority of the superintendent; the decision of moving Briggs to the Preserve school and the reversal; the decision of moving the agriculture program at Chino High to Don Lugo and the reversal; the loss of 60 percent of highly specialized speech and language pathologists (12 of 20); the needless elimination of three schools with devastating results to the community; the uncalled for disruption of student life from the three closed schools; flip-flop decisions on transportation fees and other fee services; the misinformation of the budget with a questionable $44 million deficit; weekend overtime pay to staff due to the closed schools; the layoff of 171 teachers and 47 CSEA employees (all layoffs could have been avoided); CVUSD in PI status by the state, and failure to hold Heatley accountable - one wonders: Where was the board? ...
John Pruitt is a former board member of Chino Valley Unified School District. He lives in Chino.
I think perhaps Jim Holtz predicted incorrectly when he evaluated the Maura Larkins case in 2004.
Profile: Jim Holtz Partner Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz San Diego Daily Transcript
One of the keys to litigating an insurance case is experience, which could be why so many clients turn to the lawyers at Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz.
"We can evaluate liability and what the expected award will be very early on because we've seen these types of cases before," said partner Jim Holtz, who heads the firm's insurance practice. "We can identify what the likely result will be at trial ... whether a verdict will be in a certain range.
Holtz recently predicted the exact amount of a case that returned an $85,000 verdict.
Chino Valley Unified School District Regular Meeting of the Board of Education October 16, 2008 Approved payment for legal services to the law offices of Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP and Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC.
Two years ago, around this reflective time of year, I decided to name a “Hero of the Year,” a variant on Time magazine’s annual honor. Here’s a passage from the 2007 column:
...Gadfly
...As you know, MiraCosta’s headline-grabbing 2007 scandal, known as Palmgate, resulted in a bewilderingly generous $1.6 million severance package for former President Victoria Richart. The outlandish payout, more than $1 million more than the 18 months’ salary and benefits to which she was contractually entitled, was based on the flimsy premise that Richart might successfully sue the college for personal damages.
Enter Page, a deputy counsel for Orange County who enlisted another attorney, Ron Cozad, to help him challenge the apparent gift of public funds, as well as the secret, grotesque circumstances in which the “settlement” — more accurately, legal heist — was approved.
In an all-night meeting, three dissident trustees had been bullied into signing off on the insane severance package. They weren’t waterboarded, but they were threatened with personal financial ruin...
In light of the appellate court’s stunning reversal of a district court’s dismissal of Page’s arguments, Richart faces what could be an uncomfortable procedure.
She may very well be forced “to disgorge her ill-gotten gains,” a colorful phrase Page imports from the legal language of his native England.
Aside from the disgorger, the other loser in this reversal is the law firm of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, MiraCosta’s mouthpiece.
You can’t blame Richart and her attorney at the time, Bob Ottilie, for trying to stick it to the college when Richart decided to jump ship and take a chest of gold with her. All’s fair in love and war — and litigation. If it hadn’t been for Page — a gadfly wised up on labor law — their confidence game would have worked like a charm.
No, the outrageous payment — $650,000 in unproven (I’d say phantom) damages, as well as other tribute to Richart — has to be placed at the door of the prominent law firm.
Last week, Dan Shinoff suggested it was unclear if Richart would have to return any money when the case returns in January to a Vista judge for disposition.
He suggested Page was “naive” to think it’s as simple as that.
In a letter to MiraCosta trustees last week, Page responded:
“I think Mr. Shinoff is terribly conflicted because he got the Board into this mess and has now only put the college into a worse position; he’s doing his best to cover up what in my view is his own professional negligence.”
Page goes on to say the board should seek an independent legal opinion as to how to proceed.
This is an interesting case, establishing that you can NOT give up your right to due process as established by the Education Code.
It looks like Ray Artiano of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz is an education attorney now. Welcome to the world of education, Ray.
Filed 7/28/09 COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAM H. FARAHANI v. SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, Ray J. Artiano and Richard E. Romero for Defendants and Appellants.
Grady and Associates, Dennis M. Grady, Kenneth W. Baisch, and Bradley K. Moores for Plaintiff and Respondent.
... The trial court granted Farahani’s petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), ruling that the Agreement violated the Education Code and Farahani’s due process rights. The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085...
Farahani was a tenured professor of international relations and public policy at Mesa College. He had worked for the District for 18 years prior to his termination in June 2006.
Beginning in 1994, the District received complaints from female students and staff about what they described as unwanted sexual and social advances. In October 2000, after investigating some of these complaints, the District gave Farahani a written reprimand advising him that continued misconduct would result in discipline up to and including termination...
