This is Nothing More than Another Excuse for Pinkney’s Law Firm to Funnel Money Out of Beaumont.
JUNE 3 0 2017
Katelyn K. Empey, Esq. (SBN 292110)
SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP
1800 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Telephone (760) 322-2275 / Facsimile (760) 322-2107
Email: mu****@sb***.com/ke****@sb***.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, CITY OF BEAUMONT and BEAUMONT UTILITY AUTHORITY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (RIVERSIDE BRANCH)
CITY OF BEAUMONT, a municipal corporation; and BEAUMONT UTILITY AUTHORITY a public agency blended component unit of the City of Beaumont, Plaintiffs,
V.
JOSEPH AKLUFI, an individual; DAVID WYSOCKI, an individual; AKLUFI & WYSOCKI, a California partnership; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. RIC 1712036
COMPLAINT FOR:
1. Legal Malpractice
2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
3. Breach of Written Contract
Defendants had a duty to supervise, monitor and oversee the actions of the City Council/Boards and City officials, contractors and employees to insure that they acted lawfully.
18. As City Attorney for the City and General Counsel for the City-related entity, Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in performing legal services and giving legal advice to the City and City-related entity, including but not limited to the following:
a. Defendants, and each of them, negligently failed to supervise, monitor and/or oversee the actions of City officials, contractors and/or other City employees who were tasked with the daily administration of the City and City-related entity, and defendants negligently permitted members of the City staff, contractors and employees, including, but not limited to, the City Manager, the City Finance Director, the City Engineer, the City Public Works Director, the Economic Development Director, and the; Planning Director to manipulate and ignore legal requirements regarding conflicts of interest, to overcharge the City and City-related entity for purported services, and to act secretly and unlawfully and to engage in self-dealing to the detriment of the City and City-related entity, including but not limited to the following:
Defendants, and each of them, negligently allowed the City and City-related entity to enter into, renew and/or amend agreements with various companies, including but not limited to, Cherry Valley Automotive and Beaumont Tire, despite City officials, including the Finance Director, Bill Aylward, having a direct or indirect financial interest in the businesses, in violation of the City’s Conflict of Interest Code, Goverment Code section 1090 and the Political Reform Act. Defendants, and each of them, further permitted Aylward to approve and process payments and requisitions for these businesses despite the clear conflict of interest.
Defendants, and each of them, negligently allowed the City and City-related entity to employ as City officials, individuals who owned Urban Logic Consultants (“ULC”), a corporation that had a planning, economic development, public works, engineering and other services contract with the City since 1993. ULC was owned by Deepak Moorjani, David Dillon, and Ernest Egger. Despite never being acknowledged or placed on City payroll, Moorjani served as City Engineer and Public Works Director, Dillon served as Economic Development Director, and Egger served as Planning Director.
All three of these individuals served in positions requiring compliance with the City’s Conflict of Interest Code and State conflict of interest laws, including Government Code section 1090. However, on information and belief, defendants, and each of them, negligently permitted Moorjani to improperly approve invoices/requisitions for ULC, and Defendants, and each of them, negligently allowed Dillon, Moorjani, and Egger to unlawfully profit from ULC contracts with the City in violation of conflict of interest laws.
On information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, further allowed ULC, Dillon, Moorjani, Egger and/or other contractors or Plaintiffs to grossly overcharge Plaintiffs for purported services. Despite having direct knowledge of the conflicts of interest and other overcharges, Defendants, and each of them, did nothing to inform/disclose to the City Council and/or other City-related entity Boards the conflicts of interest and/or overcharges or otherwise to prevent the conflicts of interest and/or overcharges from occurring.
b. Defendants, and each of them, negligently failed to discover, impede or otherwise disclose to the City Council/City-related entity Boards the City officials’, contractors’ and employees’ conflicts of interest and overcharges, and on information and belief, defendants, and each of them, know of and/or negligently permitted the conflicts of interest and overcharges to continue, and/or actively concealed the existence of the conflicts of interest and overcharges from the City Council/City-related entity Boards. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known, of the conflicts of interest of the City officials and of the overcharges as alleged above, and defendants, and each of them, had a duty to report these conflicts of interest and overcharges and to prevent the same, and Defendants, and each of them, failed to do so.
c. Defendants, and each of them, negligently permitted the City to enter into contracts in violation of State law and the City Code. In violation of State law and City Code, Defendants, and each of them, permitted the City and City-related entity to enter into agreements without complying with competitive procedures required by state law and the City Code. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them, negligently failed to require ULC contracts to be submitted and approved in an open and competitive process.
Defendants, and each of them, also negligently permitted the City to enter into contracts for procurement of electrical supplies and equipment and contracts for services with Beaumont Electric without complying with proper procurement procedures or competitive bidding.
d. Defendants negligently failed to discover and/or prevent the City from making improper loans to public officials and gifting public funds.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants, and each of them, negligently permitted the City Manager, Kapanicas, to improperly authorize the wife of Deepak Moorjani to receive City healthcare/COBRA benefits, despite having never been an employee of the City.
e. Defendants, and each of them, negligently advised or failed to advise the City regarding the collection of TUMF in implementation of the City’s TUMF program on development projects, which the City was obligated to collect and remit to WRCOG.
f. Defendants negligently failed to require City staff to keep proper accounting and records of bond issuances, fixed assets and inventory; failed to provide adequate oversight over contract awards; failed to advise the City and related entities regarding State law and City Code; failed to require the City to maintain written administrative policies and procedures; and failed to require adequate financial reporting or control over fiscal functions, which caused a massive deficit in the City’s General Fund to go unreported for many years.
g. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants, and each of them, negligently or intentionally delayed in timely providing Plaintiffs with a copy of all of their files related to Plaintiffs’ matters when requested following their termination as City Attorney and General Counsel for the City-related entity. In or about April 2016, Plaintiffs requested copies of their files from the Defendants.
Defendants, and each of them, and yet it was not until September or October 2016 that Defendants, and each of them, provided some, but clearly not all, files to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are also informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants, and each of them, intentionally and/or negligently failed to provide all of Plaintiffs’ files to Plaintiffs, even though Defendants, and each of them, had a legal duty to do so. As an example, but without limitation, Defendants, and each of them, have not given to Plaintiffs any of their files regarding the WRCOG Action, which resulted in a judgment against the City in excess of $60 million, even though Plaintiffs had timely requested all of their files be returned upon termination of defendants.
19. As a direct result of Defendants’, and each of their, gross negligence and failure to fulfill the duties of City Attorney for the City and General Counsel for the City-related entity, the City and City-related entity were damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
Read Full Lawsuit here: http://www.courthousenews.com/…