OC Superior Court Judge David McEachen has ruled against a left-wing activist group’s lawsuit against Anaheim’s economic assistance agreement (EAA) with the GardenWalk Hotels project.

As we reported two weeks ago, Judge McEachen issued a tentative ruling against Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD), the union-funded progressive advocacy group that in 2013 filed a pretty flimsy lawsuit seeking to torpedo the Anaheim City Council-approved economic assistance agreement with the developers of the GardenWalk Hotels project. Judge McEachen’s ruling was predictable, but the OCCORD lawsuit has held up the project for two years. A number of city watchers believe that was intentional, in hopes the legal fees and carrying costs would force the GardenWalk developers to walk away.

It’s worth noting that OCCORD is represented in this suit by Corey Briggs, the same San Diego-based liberal lawyer who is teaming with local gadlfy group CATER in an effort to torpedo the financing for the Anaheim Convention Center expansion.  It’s also worth noting the GardenWalk Hotels presumably plan to hire a non-union hotel workers – and OCCORD’s primary funder is UNITE-HERE Local 11, which depends for its revenue on organizing hotel workers as UNITE-HERE members. [NOTE: I’m told the excitable denizens of Orange Juice Blog are in a tizzy over the preceding sentence and are predictably blowing it out of proportion. I presume the employees of the GardenWalk Hotels will be non-unionized because that is the case with just about all the hotels in the Resort; however, I wasn’t referring to the construction jobs resulting from building the hotels, which I presume will be union jobs.] 

OCCORD claimed the city council’s approval of the GardenWalk economic assistance agreement violated state conflict-of-interest laws because some of the council members had received campaign contributions from a couple of GardenWalk Hotels investors. [I’m curious if OCCORD has ever taken legal action against any city when councilmembers who have received donations from city employee unions approve a city employees union contract. Somehow, I doubt it.]

In ruling against this claim, Judge McEachen stated what was obvious at the time – campaign contributions do not violate conflict-of-interest laws:

“An impermissible financial interest does not arise based only on votes favorable to campaign contributors: instead, there must be some financial or pecuniary benefit to the governmental official which could sway his or her judgment. Claims based on the assumption that accepting campaign contributions from persons interested in the EAAs created conflicts of interest for the recipients thus fail as a matter of law.”

“It also appears that Plaintiff has attempted to aggregate claims in a manner inconsistent with the CRL, such as donations made by spouses. Plaintiff argues in Opposition that its intent is to aggregate only for individuals and certain entities, but that is not evident from the First Amended Complaint, which is thus uncertain. Plaintiff’s quid pro quo claims, which appear to be premised on alleged “illegal” contributions are thus also uncertain. In addition, although circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to permit a finding of a section 1090 violation, the First Amended Complaint does not identify any alleged circumstantial evidence in support of those claims beyond the fact that contributions were made, which is insufficient. Those claims as pled thus fail to state a cognizable cause of action.”

OCCORD also asserted the GardenWalk agreement was illegal because Rutan & Tucker, which did some legal work for the GardenWalk developers, is also a contract legal services provider for the City of Anaheim. Judge McEachen ruled against that claim:

“The…claims as to Rutan & Tucker LLP’s involvement in negotiations also fail as pled, as the First Amended Complaint does not allege that such counsel “stood to gain or lose financially” based on same.”

The judge also ruled against OCCORD’s weird claim that the city was required to put the EAA out to bid and not doing so violated Section 1222 (“Sale of Municipal Property) of the city charter:

“The 2nd Cause of action fails as a matter of law, as ACC Section 1222 does not apply to the EAAs. Plaintiff offers no authority for the proposition that sections 1222 applies to the EAAs, and the provision on its face demonstrates otherwise. In addition, even if section 1222 did apply, the vote by the City Council in favor thereof would appear sufficient to satisfy its requirements.”

The ruling gives OCCORD 20 days to amend the first cause of action (the conflict of interest claim). In others, the judge is giving them additional time to come up with some real evidence of a conflict – which OCCORD and Briggs won’t be able to do because that line of attack was absurd from the get-go.

Hopefully, this will bring an end to an incredibly and needlessly destructive period in Anaheim civic affairs fueled by an extraordinarily vicious campaign of vilification against a development project that will create jobs, generate revenue for the city, and enhance Anaheim’s competitiveness as a convention and vacation destination.