Lawsuit brought by former sheriff’s Lt. Bill Hunt thrown out.

[BonoVox]

Carona rival’s lawsuit thrown out - The Crime Scene - OCRegister.com



Carona rival’s lawsuit thrown out
October 22nd, 2009, 10:33 am · 11 Comments · posted by Rachanee Srisavasdi
A lawsuit brought by former sheriff’s Lt. Bill Hunt against ex-sheriff Mike Carona — which went to trial last week in Los Angeles — was thrown out this morning by a federal judge who granted Carona’’s motion to dismiss the entire case.

U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow ruled that in light of the jury’s findings on questions posed to them about Hunt’s role in the department, Hunt was deemed to be a department policymaker, according to the county’s lawyer, Norman Watkins.

“The jury’s findings were consistent with the evidence,” Watkins said. “I think the court made the right call.”

Hunt declined to comment.

The judge also decided that Carona is entitled to ‘qualified immunity,” which shields public officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s constitutional rights in some cases, Watkins said.

Hunt unsuccessfully ran against Carona for sheriff in 2006. After Carona won the election, he demoted Hunt — then a lieutenant who oversaw San Clemente police services — to a deputy position. Carona and the county reasoned Hunt’s criticisms of Carona’s administration during the campaign violated department policy.

Rather than take the demotion, Hunt resigned and sued, alleging his criticism of Carona was protected under the First Amendment. The county argued that Hunt’s criticism was not protected speech because Hunt, as a member of Carona’s executive team who was running for office, was subject to termination.

The jury –which began deliberating the case yesterday — was sent home, and judgment entered in favor of Carona.

[DVSmith]

And what did this little temper tantrum of Hunt's cost us taxpayers?

[protectmine]

yeah what a waste of time and resources that was. Mr Hunt should know better since he is supposedly equipped to handle the political climate of the County and run the department if elected. ugh

[Tom98915]

Originally Posted by DVSmith

And what did this little temper tantrum of Hunt's cost us taxpayers?

WAAAAAA!!!!!

[BonoVox]

I hope for Mr. Hunt's sake this was done on contingency. However I really think the losing plaintiff should pay for the defense's legal bills in a civil lawsuit. Every expert I talked to, that knew the facts of this case, said it would be a big loser for Mr. Hunt.

The county was released from it a week ago and please, does anybody think Retired Sheriff Carona has $4 to $6 million to pay up if Mr. Hunt were to cash in on his Hale Mary? What a waste.

I am sorry if I offend the people that are backing Mr. Hunt. I am just giving my personal .02 on the deal. YMMV

[BonoVox]

Judge dismisses Carona rival's lawsuit | hunt, carona, sheriff, case, judge - News - OCRegister.com

Thursday, October 22, 2009
Judge dismisses Carona rival's lawsuit
Ex-Lt. Bill Hunt had wanted more than $4 million in free-speech case stemming from 2006 election.
By RACHANEE SRISAVASDI
The Orange County Register
Comments 1| Recommend 0

A First Amendment lawsuit brought by former sheriff's Lt. Bill Hunt against ex-sheriff Mike Carona — a case that was under deliberations by a Los Angeles jury – was tossed out Thursday by a federal judge who granted Carona's motion to dismiss.

U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow ruled that Hunt – who was chief of police services in San Clemente before being demoted by Carona – was a policy-maker for the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

As a policy-maker, Hunt had limited First Amendment protections – meaning he was subject to either being fired or demoted by Carona.

The case stemmed from the 2006 campaign for sheriff, in which Hunt ran against the incumbent Carona. The election resulted in a third term for Carona, but he resigned in 2008 after being indicted on federal corruption charges.

During the race, Hunt, a lieutenant assigned to overseeing sheriff's operations in San Clemente, publicly criticized his boss, accusing him of cronyism for hiring ex-assistant sheriffs George Jaramillo and Don Haidl.

Hunt was one of the first individuals to speak out publicly against Carona – who was found guilty in January of felony witness tampering and sentenced to 5 ½ years in prison. Carona is free in lieu of bail while he appeals the conviction.

After Carona won the election, he immediately put Hunt on administrative leave pending an internal probe of Hunt's campaign statements. He later demoted Hunt to a deputy sheriff position in Stanton. Rather than take the position, Hunt resigned in December 2006.

In his lawsuit, Hunt alleged Carona violated his First Amendment right to free speech by demoting him because of his campaign statements.

The case went to trial last week. The jury of five women and three men began deliberations Wednesday and answered questions about the scope of Hunt's role in the Sheriff's Department.

Based on the jury's answers, Morrow decided Hunt was a policy-maker.

"The jury's findings were consistent with the evidence," said Carona's lawyer, Norman Watkins. "I think the court made the right call."

Hunt, who is again running for sheriff next year, said he "strongly disagrees" with the judge's decision. He does not yet know if he is able to appeal the judge's ruling.

"Obviously, we're disappointed,'' he said. "I believed in the case. I need to take some time and sort things out and think about what the next step will be."

The judge also decided that Carona was entitled to 'qualified immunity,' which shields public officials from liability for the violation of an individual's constitutional rights in some cases, Watkins added.

The case could have resulted in a multi-million judgment against Carona – who was being defended by the county. The county itself was removed as defendant about a week ago. During closing statements, Hunt's lawyer Richard Levine asked jurors to award Hunt more than $4 million, including $2 to $3 million for emotional distress.

But Carona maintained he had the right to demote, or even fire, Hunt. He argued Hunt was a policy-maker for the Sheriff's Department and had limited free speech protections.

During the trial, Carona testified that he was advised by the county's lawyers, and his staff, that he could fire or demote Hunt because of Hunt's criticisms, which he said created divisiveness in the agency. Carona testified that he hoped the demotion would start a "healing process" within the department.

Hunt told jurors that sheriff's officials never told him during the campaign that his comments violated departmental policy. He said the demotion publicly humiliated him and that he believes he was forced out of the Sheriff's Department.

[ZUMNDAD]

As with BonoVox, I ask this question without intending to offend...

Can someone please explain the relevance between Hunt's case being dismissed and his ability to be an upstanding, righteous Sheriff for OC - because I just don't see the correlation.

There are lots of people who take their grievances to court and lose for one reason or another. Providing it is not a criminal proceeding, does this somehow diminish their character?

Seriously - help I really want to understand the thought process behind this.

[glbtrottr]

Originally Posted by ZUMNDAD

Can someone please explain the relevance between Hunt's case being dismissed and his ability to be an upstanding, righteous Sheriff for OC - because I just don't see the correlation.

Providing it is not a criminal proceeding, does this somehow diminish their character?

I will also try to be objective without meaning to offend. Good, bad or indifferent, people *hate* or run away from LOSERS.

BILL HUNT is a LOSER. By definition. Look at the outcome of his case. Also, look at the decision made by the command staff at OCSD. He LOST his job, he LOST his rank, sued AFTER he got fired, he LOST his case, which amongst other things will lead to him LOSING the election.

Upstanding perhaps, in line with us perhaps, hardworking even...

But Sandy Hutchens never crusaded against her bosses that we know of. And lost. Being in foreclosure while pulling down a half a cool mill while her husband also makes money doesn't matter. She has the slot. Bill doesn't. Girls like Girls. That makes her a winner, and Bill a LOSER.

If you're going to take a policy to talk trash about your management, you better have your facts straight, or face dire consequences...in civilian life or otherwise. You better WIN. Use a federal whistleblower statute, sue BEFORE you get fired, etc.

Had Mr. Hunt WON, perhaps we could be able to capitalize on riding a wave, the snowball effect, you name it.

In addition to being a LOSER, he also demonstrated POOR JUDGEMENT. He talked trash about his boss. That's a No No. You only get to WIN if you line up your cards and get him FIRED. He LOST. Sandy gets to giggle. John Scott gets to snort, smoke another cigar. Mike Hillman gets to chuckle.

You only get to play Martyr if someone bigger than you agrees that you should have WON. The President, a Court of Law, a Court of Public Opinion...in this case, that someone larger spoke up, and Bill Hunt LOST.

The general public HATES losers.

Hunt will be seen as a relic of "boys will be boys" fighting with each other in the CARONA years.

They want a little taste of "HOPE" and "CHANGE".

Hunt isn't HOPE and CHANGE. He's a sore loser who talked trash about his boss, got demoted, ran away with what little was left of his dignity, tried to SUE after he got fired in a retaliatory basis, and LOST.

Selling the public on Hunt will be like trying to get Palin elected. She may have had a nice rack sometime ago, and perhaps we like her values, but girls are voting today and lots of em like a girl in office. You have created no compelling reason for them to dismiss her foibles with Bill Hunt, but you have introduced a multi-time LOSER in the race. The other side will bring up even more garbage to show this loss as part of a long losing streak. Infidelity? Sure. They'll find something somewhere to make him look bad. Lying somewhere? Just you wait. Favoritism? Absolutely. Hold your breath.

Hate the game, not the player.

Now - I have another question for you. Do you think Mr. Hunt has skeletons in his closet? Do you think he ever participated in cronyism? Do you think he ever did things considered to be illegal? Do you think he swept things under the rug? I do...and I think this is only round one of a very long fight for Mr. Hunt.

As I have asked before, if everyone feels SO positive on Mr. Hunt, are you all willing to bet your paycheck on his winning? I've made the offer before, lets bet your paycheck and mine, we'll put them in escrow, and use them in Mr. Hunt's celebratory party, or let me buy another gun with my winnings.

Takers?

[Reloader]

For what it is worth, the publications seem to indicate the Judge took it away from the jury right before deliberations. I would have rather heard from a jury. I have also seen around on the blogs that the Judge was an "activist" appointed by Clinton and recommended by Sen. Boxer. That's scary stuff.

[libertarian]

Originally Posted by ZUMNDAD

As with BonoVox, I ask this question without intending to offend...

Can someone please explain the relevance between Hunt's case being dismissed and his ability to be an upstanding, righteous Sheriff for OC - because I just don't see the correlation.

There are lots of people who take their grievances to court and lose for one reason or another. Providing it is not a criminal proceeding, does this somehow diminish their character?

Seriously - help I really want to understand the thought process behind this.

This lawsuit was a bad idea for several reasons:

1) Sue the county you're trying to get elected in, which costs the taxpayers money (especially in a time of budget crisis), and alienates voters and taxpayers
2) alienates the Board of Supervisors (who approve the sheriff's budget),
and ESPECIALLY
3) when you have been told by legal council that your suit has a very small chance of success.

Personally? I think it brings his judgment into question.

[glbtrottr]

Originally Posted by libertarian

Personally? I think it brings his judgment into question.

Originally Posted by glbtrottr

In addition to being a LOSER, he also demonstrated POOR JUDGEMENT.

I think we agree wholeheartedly.

[Spicy McHaggis]

Most cases like these are just settled by the county, since it is cheaper to just pay off the person suing than to pay for a trial. But in this case the county must have known they had a good case and went forward with it. They were right, this case was thrown out entirely. It's too bad the county still had to waste money on this.

[ZUMNDAD]

Originally Posted by ZUMNDAD

Can someone please explain the relevance between Hunt's case being dismissed and his ability to be an upstanding, righteous Sheriff for OC.

I asked. You answered. Thanks for your input.

[Reloader]

I am sure it will be appealed just like Carona is doing.

[glbtrottr]

Appealed?

And Obama will be out of office one day.

His appeal will take far longer than the election. In the meantime, he remains, a LOSER associated with the old Carona regime, which the voters of Orange County will want nothing to do with.

I'm taking bets, Reloader. You in?