By Jorge Casuso

September 9, 2024 -- The City Council on Tuesday will once again take up an 8 1/2 year-old voting rights lawsuit after the judge in the case said he sees it lasting another "five to seven" years.

Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Crowley also said legal fees could "at least" double, unless there is a settlement in the case charging Santa Monica's at-large election system discriminates against Latino voters.

Crowley made the statements at an August 13 hearing, where the plaintiffs asked that he reaffirm the 2019 Superior Court judgment against the City, and the defendant submitted a motion for a new trail. The judge urged the parties to settle.

"I'm generally of the belief that every case in front of me can be resolved informally through some compromise and crafting solution," Crowley said, according to an uncertified transcript of the hearing.

"Maybe this is not one of those," he said. "And maybe it's the attorneys fees provision that prevents that from happening. Is that the case?"

"Yes, Your Honor," said Daniel Adler, an associate attorney for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the prominent law firm representing the City.

"Your Honor is correct in surmising that the tail is now wagging the dog and the principal issue is the significant attorneys fees request that was put in some years ago that I'm sure has only grown larger since."

The 2019 request for $22.3 million in legal fees and expenses was made by the plaintiff's lead attorney, Kevin Shenkman, shortly after the Council voted to appeal the Superior Court ruling against the City ("Santa Monica Council Votes to Appeal Voting Rights Ruling," February 21, 2019).

Since then, the case has wound its way up to the California Appellate and Supreme courts before landing back in Superior Court ("Appeals Court Bounces Voting Rights Case Back to Trial Court," February 9, 2024).

City officials have rejected requests to disclose how much the City has spent fighting the lawsuit, citing attorney client privileges in the ongoing litigation ("City Officials Won't Reveal Cost of Voting Rights Lawsuit Until Case is Closed," March 5, 2019).

At the August 13 hearing, Shenkman told the Court that Santa Monica is one of two cities that chose to challenge the voting rights lawsuits he has filed over the past 12 years. The other case is pending.

"Had the defendant changed their election system back in 2016, I would have -- my many colleagues that have worked on this case over the last eight and a half years would have gotten paid zero dollars and every one of them would have been content with it."

Crowley noted that legal fees will continue climbing as the case continues.

"Okay. Just sitting here, I see five to seven year life still. You asked for fees," he said. "I suspect by the end of this it will be double that number at least. Just a thought."

The judge directed the two parties to file briefs by October 31 and set a hearing for November 15.

"Well, I think we have a plan," Crowley said. "And I don't know if you can do it, but maybe think outside the box as to how you might come up with a resolution."

Otherwise, "I see you in this for a long time," the judge added. "One of my favorite lines is the quote from Jaws, 'We're going to need a bigger boat.'"