Judge rules in favor of Redondo Beach political group that backed anti-waterfront development measure

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday, Nov. 20, against two Redondo Beach residents who sued Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim, Mayor Bill Brand and the political action committee that spearheaded the controversial ballot Measure C in 2016 that sought to upend the city’s proposed waterfront project.

In his ruling from the bench, Judge Malcolm Mackey called the two residents, Chris Voisey and Arnette Travis, “shills” for developer CenterCal Properties, which it was revealed under sworn testimony paid for their legal representation.

CenterCal was also the company that earned a bid to develop the waterfront with a 524,000-square-foot “harbor village” from Seaside Lagoon to the pier with shops, restaurants, a hotel, a market hall and movie theater.

The company spent $603,000 to try to defeat Measure C in 2017, which passed with 57 percent of the vote. The waterfront project, meanwhile, is stuck in legal limbo after the California Coastal Commission found substantial issue with the proposal and then certified Measure C. CenterCal is also embroiled in multiple lawsuits with the city, one seeking damages of $15 million.

The lawsuit alleged that Brand and Nehrenheim conspired to control the political action committee Rescue Our Waterfront, and that the PAC made a mistake in not filing paperwork as an issue committee rather than a general purpose committee.

On both counts Mackey ruled against the plaintiffs. A formal judgment statement is expected in the next 10 days, at which point the plaintiffs represented by attorney Bradley Hertz could choose to file an appeal.

“Frankly, we think the judge got it wrong as far as the law,” Hertz said in an interview Tuesday following the decision. “The judge found they acted in good faith and that absolved the defendant of liability, but there is no good faith exemption in the Political Reform Act. We feel he applied the wrong legal standard and did not look at all the factors.”

Had the plaintiffs prevailed, Brand and the other defendants—including Wayne Craig of R.O.W. and Linda Moffatt, Brand’s treasurer during his 2016 campaign for mayor – would need to foot the legal bills. The suit also sought injunctive relief, which meant R.O.W. would need to amend its filing with the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Attorney Jeanne Zimmer, who represented Nehrenheim in the case, said the legal bills could likely be more than $500,000 based on roughly a dozen depositions, five days spent in court and other time spent on the case.

“We’re ecstatic because justice was done,” Zimmer said. “From the beginning we said this was a merit-less lawsuit. There was no real reason for it and they were vindicated today.”

For Brand, the ruling meant redemption, especially since they were able to get Hertz to reveal on the witness stand on Monday that Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC, a subsidiary of CenterCal, was paying the legal expenses for the case.

“We thought it was CenterCal behind it, but we couldn’t prove it because they wouldn’t disclose it,” Brand said. “So we had to wait 17 months to finally get our day in court and thankfully the judge figured out what a sham it was.”

Voisey, in an interview after the ruling on Tuesday, insisted that CenterCal’s involvement in the case was news to him when it was revealed under penalty of perjury by Hertz. In addition, he said the revelation had no bearing in the case and could possibly violate attorney-client privilege.

“We had no knowledge of another entity,” Voisey said. Asked whether he or Travis had paid any money toward legal representation in the case, Voisey said “no.”

“Technically we have not paid any money,” he said. “We were not acting on behalf of anybody but ourselves.”

In separate interviews with The Beach Reporter in 2017, both Voisey and Travis, said they had brought the lawsuit forward on their own accord with no involvement by CenterCal or anyone else. Hertz also represented CenterCal in its bid to defeat Measure C.

The ball is now in the plaintiff’s court as they decide whether to pursue an appeal in the next two months. Defendants are also expected to file a motion seeking attorney fees.