I’ve spent enough time through the years covering court cases to say it’s not often that I’ve seen opposing parties come away from a hearing both believing they won.
But that’s the sense I got after talking to attorneys on both sides of Fernley City Councilman Stan Lau’s petition for an injunction against the City of Fernley to overturn his expulsion from the council last March.
Partly because the judge ruled in favor of one of Lau’s claims in his petition and denied the other, both sides expressed opposing views of what the ruling actually means.
Not that either one expressly used these words, but after talking to both of them, my sense was that each believes they won.
On Lau’s side, attorney Jeff Dickerson said their position is that Third Judicial District Court Judge Leon Aberasturi’s ruling means Lau is entitled to take his seat back on the City Council.
Dickerson said because the judge ruled that the city violated the Nevada Open Meeting Law when it expelled Lau in March, the expulsion never happened, even though the council approved a second resolution to expel Lau on April 15.
Dickerson’s argument is that the second resolution served only as a preemptive move to keep the Nevada Attorney General’s Office from sanctioning the City Council for violating the Open Meeting Law and therefore does not apply to the expulsion itself.
Fernley City Attorney Aaron Mouritsen disagreed, saying the City’s position is that the April 15 vote stands on its own, in addition to serving as the corrective action for the March 4 vote by the council, which the judge said violated the Open Meeting Law because the agenda did not specify that Lau could be expelled.
The disagreement is only possible because the judge did not specifically rule on whether the April 15 vote was merely corrective action or also applies to Lau’s expulsion. Mouritsen said the judge did not rule on that issue because the argument was not part of the pleadings in the case filed by Lau’s attorney, and a judge cannot rule on an issue that is not brought before him.
In this case, that question matters because of the judge’s other ruling: that the City Council does have the authority under Nevada Revised Statutes and the Fernley Municipal Code to expel a councilmember for cause. The judge ruled that the City Council followed its municipal code and state statutes.
Because the specific issue of the April 15 meeting was not heard, it’s likely there will be more motions filed and more arguments before it’s decided once and for all whether Lau gets his City Council seat back or his expulsion stands.
No matter how it ultimately ends up, there is one thing about this case that is certain to remain true.
No matter who is the victor in any court case, billable hours always win.
Comment
Comments