By Jorge Casuso
October 8, 2025 -- The City's legal bill fighting a voting rights lawsuit filed by Latino plaintiffs nearly a decade ago has climbed to nearly $14.5 million, according to the latest figures from the City.
Since the previous update on November 6, 2023, the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has billed the City of Santa Monica approximately $1.6 million, according to the City Attorney's Office.
The bill covers work on a supplemental opening brief, an opposition to an ex parte application, a brief and two supporting declarations, according to a timeline posted by the City.
That brings the total bill to date to $14,487,889.09, City officials said in response to The Lookout's request for information.
One of the most expensive law firms in the nation, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher made headlines recently after the firm billed the City of Los Angeles $1.8 million for two weeks work.
The law firm's initial contract to defend the City in a high profile case over control of LA's homeless programs was for $900,000, an amount approved by the City Council in late May.
By August 9, the bill had skyrocketed to $3.2 million, with $1.8 million billed within a two-week span, with at least 15 of Gibson Dunn’s lawyers billing nearly $1,300 per hour, according to the LA Times.
On September 17, the LA Council approved a five-fold increase to its contract to $5 million for the fiscal year ending on June 30 next year.
Santa Monica officials said the City's contract with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for the voting rights case "is structured very differently from the city of Los Angeles."
"We monitor Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s work to ensure it aligns with what is planned and we have not worked in a cap structure due to the long term nature of the case," City officials said in a statement.
Filed by Latino activists on April 12 2016, the CVRA case has been winding its way through the courts since a Superior Court Judge ruled against the City on February 15, 2019 and ordered District elections.
The City Council immediately appealed the case to a State Appellate Court, which ruled on July 9, 2020 in favor of the City.
The plaintiffs then appealed to the State Supreme Court, which on September 20, 2023 remanded the case back to the Appeals Court, dealing a blow to the City.
In February 2024, the Appeals Court in turn sent the case back to Superior Court, where it had been filed nearly eight years earlier.
Last November, Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Crowley urged both parties to mediate, noting the case could continue for another four years.
The voting rights case has been placed periodically on the City Council's closed session agenda after major court rulings, prompting both sides to mount lobbying efforts.
Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision in August 2023, proponents of continuing to fight the lawsuit argued that any decision to change Santa Monica's voting system should be made through an open, public process.
"As we are a charter city, our form of government is for the citizens alone to decide by voting at the ballot box," said a September 2023 letter to the Council signed by 13 civic leaders, including three former Councilmembers.
Meanwhile plaintiffs argued that "it's time for (the Council) to end the City's expensive and divisive fight against the voting rights of Latinos in Santa Monica, and minorities throughout California."
The letter to the Council sent by the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) shortly after the Supreme Court ruling urged the Council to "drop the appeal," settle the case and "stop wasting millions of our tax dollars."