Back To All News

How Four Public Agency Cases Closed Without a Fight

What a recent run of dismissals says about early case evaluation, layered immunities, and knowing when to take the exit.

Between May and August of this year, litigator Debra Cahir closed four matters on behalf of public agency clients. Three of them resolved without a dollar paid, all within three weeks of one another this summer. The fourth resolved for a nominal amount, agreed to in order to acknowledge a property damage question and to secure a fully executed settlement agreement that closed the matter completely.

Runs like that are uncommon, and Ms. Cahir is quick to point out that the timing was partly coincidence. Several of the matters had been open for years. Three of them simply happened to reach their conclusions within the same short window.

What the coincidence does not explain is why each one ended the way it did. The four matters closed through four different mechanisms, and the reasoning behind each is worth understanding for any city manager or risk manager who oversees litigation exposure.

Immunities the other side had not considered

One matter involved an emergency vehicle and a passenger injury. Ms. Cahir identified two separate immunities that applied, one covering the agency’s emergency vehicle operation and one covering the emergency medical personnel involved. She had encountered similar circumstances earlier in her career and recognized the layered protection at intake rather than later in the case.

Rather than filing an answer, she wrote to opposing counsel. The letter ran three single-spaced pages and set out both immunities alongside the exposure the plaintiff would face for pursuing a case without a viable theory. Opposing counsel called immediately. The matter was dismissed as to both the agency and the individual before any responsive pleading was filed.

The lesson: Public agencies often have more than one protection available, and may need to be reminded of all their options. The immunity that resolves a case is not always the obvious one.

A motion on file before the mediation began

A second matter involved a vehicle collision. Ms. Cahir filed a motion for summary judgment in advance of the scheduled mediation, which is her regular practice rather than a tactic reserved for particular cases.

The reasoning is straightforward. Filing early puts the governing law in front of opposing counsel before settlement discussions start, so they arrive at mediation understanding the legal basis for the agency’s position rather than hearing it argued for the first time. It also spares them the work of opposing a motion they may prefer not to answer.

A recent change in California law strengthened this approach considerably. Under the appropriate circumstances, a public agency that prevails on summary judgment may now recover its attorney fees and costs. The possibility changes the calculation for weighing whether to continue against a public entity. At the mediation, the mediator acknowledged that the motion and letters regarding the statute had been positioned precisely to attain that dismissal with no funds paid. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to dismiss with a waiver of costs.

Ms. Cahir credits Gary Kranker with identifying the statute, and notes the firm has applied it throughout the year with meaningful results. For plaintiffs who file against public agencies as a matter of routine, the change is significant. The expectation that a city will pay something simply to make a case go away is no longer safe.

Sustained work in discovery

A third matter, an employment case, closed after extended work in discovery. Ms. Cahir represented the individual employee while the agency was separately represented, and the two defense teams coordinated their approach.

That coordinated effort produced a court order compelling the plaintiff’s deposition, which plaintiff’s counsel was unable to secure. Additional information also came to light through the course of the representation that materially changed the picture, and Ms. Cahir provided it to opposing counsel. Between court orders for plaintiff to supply further discovery responses and to have her deposition taken, the accumulated record, and counsel’s own pending motion to withdraw, the case reached a point where continuing served no purpose. It resolved with a waiver of costs.

Asked what created the leverage, Ms. Cahir points less to any single filing than to the relationship with her client. Taking the time to build trust, she says, is often what produces the information that decides a case.

The lesson: The information that determines a case often originates before anyone knows there will be a case.

Knowing when to take the exit

The fourth matter arrived at mediation with a pending motion for summary judgment based on design immunity. Ms. Cahir believed the motion was strong. She recommended resolving anyway.

Her reasoning is worth quoting in substance. Summary judgment can never be guaranteed, because the outcome always depends on the judge. If a case can be resolved before the hearing, that is the better result, even when the motion looks like a certainty.

She notes that experienced municipal risk managers rarely need this explained. Most have experienced a motion they were confident about going the other way. They understand what the phrase slam dunk is actually worth.

What agencies can do before a case ever begins

Asked what public agencies most often get wrong in the period before a matter reaches counsel, Ms. Cahir’s answer was immediate: evidence collection.

Some cities do this exceptionally well. Even on routine trip and fall reports, staff are out measuring and photographing within days of receiving the claim. Those agencies are consistently in a stronger position as the matter moves forward, and the same holds true for vehicle matters and every other category of exposure.

The timing problem is structural. A claim may not reach the agency for six months after an incident, by which point conditions have changed and records have moved. That makes prompt work once a claim arrives essential. It also means agencies benefit from preserving their own material up front. Contracts, work orders, incident reports, and internal documentation can be gathered and kept before anyone knows whether a claim is coming.

On approach

Ms. Cahir came to public agency defense after working as a plaintiff’s attorney, running her own practice, and then serving as corporate counsel. She turned to representing cities and stayed. She points to the complexity of the immunities and their application as the part of the work she finds most engaging, and to the people from the public entities as the reason she remains.

Her approach with opposing counsel is deliberately non-adversarial, unless necessary. She does not argue with plaintiff’s attorneys so much as explain to them where the law leads. Three of these four matters closed because opposing counsel came to see the position clearly, which is a different kind of win than a verdict and often a better one for the client.

Ms. Cahir worked these matters with attorney Gary Kranker, legal assistant Sharla Augustus, and paralegals Terry Hele and Robert Lazak.

Debra Cahir represents California public agencies from the litigation practice at Jones Mayer. The firm has served public entities across California for fifty years.

Related resources

To talk through a pending claim, early case evaluation, or evidence practices for your agency, contact Jones Mayer.

Additionally, this might interest you