City Demurrer No Good, Must Answer Kessler Amended Complaint

The City of San Diego demurrer to Scott Kessler's most recent amended complaint was unpersuasive in Court on December 10. The City of San Diego was ordered to file its legal answer to the allegations in that Kessler v. City of San Diego complaint by December 30.

Plaintiff Scott Kessler has alleged that he was improperly fired from his job with the City of San Diego after Mayor Jerry Sanders discovered Kessler's cooperation with Federal Bureau of Investigation, Housing and Urban Development inspector general, and San Diego Police inquiries into business improvement district financing and contracting issues. The City of San Diego administration insists that Kessler was let go without whistle-blower retaliation as part of a City department reorganization. Part of the matter is what happened to $288 million in diverted HUD community development block grants and subsequently accumulated interest that were supposed to be directly spent on affordable housing and other community development projects, not banked to collect the unauthorized interest.

Other pre-trial hearings have not gone in the City's favor. A motion for a mayoral protective order from testifying in deposition was denied, and the City lost its subsequent motion for summary judgment, based in part on mayoral testimony. At least one San Diego television news organization has obtained a copy of the mayor's deposition.

Comments

Don Bauder's "What a Tangled Web We Weave":


Copy of Original KESSLER V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO complaint:

http://media.sdreader.com/pdf/kessler-suit.pdf

HUD OIG Audit of City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency mentioned in KESSLER V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO complaint:

http://www.hud.gov/offices/oig/reports/files/ig0991005.pdf

The City of San Diego was ordered to file its legal answer to the allegations in that Kessler v. City of San Diego complaint by December 30.

I don't get this, the City has not even filed an answer to the May 2009 Complaint yet-from 18 months ago??? But they moved for, and lost, a summary judgement motion????

I guess this is possible if the City were claiming that they have immunity or some other legal defense where the stated facts in the Complaint wouldn't matter...weird....but the fact is if the City lost a SJ motion, they are in for rough seas in the future of this litigation.

I was confused as well. Apparently Kessler is on his second amended complaint, and the City demurred without filing an answer to the most recent amended complaint. I'll try to download a copy of the tentative ruling and make a link available.

RE "the fact is if the City lost a SJ motion, they are in for rough seas in the future of this litigation":

That about sums things up.

I'm very interested in this case and not being a Lawyer, I'm hoping that you both and maybe some other Readers that are savvy about the law will continue to share your thoughts about what you think is happening.

I do know something about ReDev. and since all ReDev. money must be accounted for under the Brown Act, I wonder why anyone, especially the FBI or the Housing and Urban Development Inspector (HUDI) would have any trouble getting an accounting of every penny spent and or generated by interest; then as Deep Throat said, "Follow the money"...

Log in to comment

Skip Ad