City of Santa Clara logo

Legislative Public Meetings

File #: 19-1121    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Public Hearing/General Business Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 9/25/2019 In control: Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting
On agenda: 10/8/2019 Final action:
Title: Report on Letter from attorney for Forty-Niners Stadium Management Co. and ratification of Stadium Authority Counsel's issuance of Notice of Termination
Attachments: 1. Termination Notice 9-17-19, 2. Letter from Management Co. Attorney, 3. POST MEETING MATERIAL
REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD
SUBJECT
Title
Report on Letter from attorney for Forty-Niners Stadium Management Co. and ratification of Stadium Authority Counsel's issuance of Notice of Termination

Report

BACKGROUND
On September 17, 2019 the Stadium Authority Board (Board Member Mahan absent) met in closed session to consider the initiation of legal proceedings to terminate the Stadium Management Agreement with the Forty-Niners Stadium Management Co. Immediately following the Closed Session, the Stadium Authority Counsel announced that the Board had voted unanimously to authorize the initiation of legal proceedings to terminate the Management Agreement. After the Board's action, Stadium Authority Counsel Brian Doyle made the decision to commence the legal proceedings by issuing a Notice of Termination which was served on the Management Company early on the morning of September 18, 2019.

DISCUSSION
On September 20, 2019, the Forty Niners filed a lawsuit against the City of Santa Clara and the Stadium Authority regarding the termination, marking the fifth legal action brought by the Forty Niners. On September 24, 2019, counsel for the Forty Niners sent a letter claiming either Mr. Doyle did not have authority to issue a Notice of Termination on his client's behalf, or the Board had violated the Brown Act in authorizing the Notice of Termination. A copy of the letter is attached.
The Forty Niners' counsel is incorrect. He provides no legal authority for his assertions that there was Brown Act violation. Neither logic nor the Government Code nor any reported case requires the Board to vote on the specific means by which its Counsel accomplishes the direction he has been given.
However, the Board need not limit the transparency of its decision-making to the requirements of the Brown Act. Although the Board's actions were fully compliant with the Brown Act, the meritless contentions in the Forty Niners' recent letter portend further litigation aimed at delay ...

Click here for full text