A hawkish litigation technique in Alameda County has led to expensive courtroom battles which have stretched on for years, racking up thousands and thousands of {dollars} in attorneys’ charges and incurring multimillion-dollar settlements for which taxpayers have footed the invoice.
There are various such costly examples, in keeping with quite a few attorneys who’ve sued the county.
In Might 2023, for instance, Alameda County’s attorneys sought a brand new trial for 2 sheriff’s deputies who had been discovered to have illegally detained Aasylei Loggervale and her two daughters, who had fallen asleep of their automobile in Castro Valley in 2019. The officers had been trying to find two male suspects who had burgled automobiles within the space, however they detained the Loggervales and demanded the mom present her ID.
A jury awarded the Loggervale household $8.25 million for his or her illegal detention 4 years later, however the county’s legal professional for the case, Kevin Gilbert, made a movement for a brand new trial, claiming senior U.S. district decide William Alsup had advocated for the plaintiffs, permitted incorrect statements on the report, and that the “totality of circumstances in the case is troubling and problematic.”
However Alsup was having none of it.
“I wish I could believe you. When I go through the list, you’ll see why I don’t trust almost anything you say,” Alsup mentioned in a back-and-forth with Gilbert.
The next enchantment price the county and its taxpayers an extra $3 million for a complete settlement of $11.26 million. In accordance with the Loggervales’ lawyer, Joseph Might, the preliminary settlement supply was roughly $750,000.
Lately, county-hired attorneys have pursued an analogous litigation technique in a number of circumstances, even when the result appeared to clearly disfavor the county’s case, in keeping with attorneys who’ve sued the county. Circumstances that might have been settled shortly for a fraction of the final word price have as a substitute turn into years-long courtroom battles, driving thousands and thousands of {dollars} in attorneys’ charges and million-dollar settlements with the plaintiffs, Might and different attorneys mentioned.
Gilbert and the county’s authorized staff “took an extremely aggressive approach,” Might mentioned. “Later on, once the facts started becoming clear, (Gilbert) just kept doubling down.”
Gilbert didn’t reply to a request for remark.
In Alameda County, County Counsel Donna Ziegler and the Threat Administration Unit resolve how to reply to circumstances filed in opposition to the county, various from alleged violations of labor legal guidelines to the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the Fourth Modification. With a case’s assigned lawyer, they face a selection: struggle the allegation or settle.
In case after case, plaintiffs’ attorneys interviewed for this story describe the county’s authorized technique as “sophomoric and unfortunately blind to obvious risk.”
Inquiries to County Counsel Donna Ziegler and the Threat Administration Unit didn’t obtain a response.
In one other case, in 2015, Daniel Ridge, a morgue worker at Alameda Well being System, was working seven days every week whereas the hospital sought to fill a vacant attendant position. The implications of this demanding position precipitated Ridge’s psychological well being to undergo, his legal professional, Lawrance Bohm, mentioned. When he sought therapy for “work stress,” his physician with Kaiser recognized him with generalized nervousness dysfunction, melancholy and PTSD, in keeping with court docket paperwork.
Ridge finally went on medical go away to take part in an Intensive Outpatient Program. It was throughout this era in late 2015 that the well being system fired Ridge for failure to point out up for work, regardless of a physician’s observe excusing him — in violation of California labor legislation. The mortician’s psychological well being deteriorated additional; he turned estranged from his household and was homeless as he pursued the lawsuit.
Alameda County “could not have had Daniel Ridge in more of a leveraged position, being in litigation for eight years, homeless, disabled, financially destitute,” Bohm mentioned. “And they couldn’t get this case resolved, mainly because they didn’t try. Instead, they took a ‘pounds for defense, pennies for resolution’ approach.”
Bohm mentioned he had provided to settle the lawsuit for $550,000 in 2018, however county counsel sought a jury trial. And in March 2025, a jury discovered the hospital system had violated California labor legislation by firing Ridge and ordered it to pay $2.4 million — along with $5 million to $7 million for attorneys charges which might be nonetheless being accounted for, in keeping with Bohm — to Ridge’s household, as his attorneys had advised the court docket he couldn’t be positioned.
The hospital system then appealed the jury’s verdict, stating, the “plaintiff’s allegations were not supported by fact” and that “Alameda Health System defended itself from litigation in this case because it was and is the right thing to do.”
However doing the proper factor, in Bohm’s opinion, requires accountability. The county’s protection staff as a substitute “dug in its heels” for 5 years and used odd interpretations of the legislation to keep away from taking accountability, he mentioned.
The county “lost this case on every issue, required a federal injunction to issue, and subjected taxpayers to over $1.2 million in avoidable legal expenses, not including the money spent on the County’s private losing defense firm,” Bohm mentioned. “The Board of Supervisors and citizens should be outraged at this overly litigious mishandling of a meritorious civil rights issue.”
However there could also be extra to the county’s litigation technique, in keeping with UC Berkeley legislation professor and former San Francisco District Legal professional Chesa Boudin.
“There is a long-term strategy that many big entities, government and private, subscribe to, which is, if we settle every case, then people will keep suing us with increasingly frivolous cases,” Boudin mentioned. “Sometimes it is worth paying lawyers more than it would cost us to settle a case to fight and deter future copycat litigation.”
Final month, Alameda County settled a lawsuit with Lisamaria Martinez, a Union Metropolis resident who’s blind and had sued Alameda County twice for failing to accommodate her incapacity as required by legislation. Whereas Martinez’s first lawsuit in opposition to Alameda County was adjudicated inside months of submitting it in 2013, her second lawsuit took practically six years to settle.
Martinez had sought to ascertain a enterprise identify in 2019 and requested the county’s Clerk and Recorder’s Workplace workers to assist her signal the doc, however they refused and mentioned that solely the enterprise proprietor might fill out the shape, in keeping with court docket paperwork. Martinez then sued the county to drive it to alter its insurance policies to be extra accessible, and the county as soon as once more fought Martinez’s allegations that workers had violated the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
5 years later, a federal jury in San Francisco dominated that Alameda County had discriminated in opposition to Martinez and her request for cheap lodging, awarding her $1.2 million — practically all of which was for authorized charges. Her legal professional, Tim Elder, mentioned the county counsel’s “overly litigious mishandling” of a foundational civil rights case ought to outrage the general public.
“Plaintiff Lisamaria Martinez was willing to resolve this case five years ago for no damages, minimal legal fees and the County of Alameda agreeing to change its policy,” Elder mentioned. “The county refused to work with us.”
In commenting on the Loggervale case, Choose Alsup emphasised how the county’s authorized strategy had price the county.
“In my view, the reason it’s a large verdict is the way Mr. Gilbert tried the case and not because of what actually happened. … It’s quite clear to me that it was the way in which this case was tried that led to this big verdict,” Alsup mentioned. “When I finally do this order, I want your boss to read it, because there are so many things you said in your brief that turned out to be false.”
