Judge rejects much of ex-professor’s suit

Thursday, April 11, 1996

Attorneys fined for failure to serve defendants in time

By Karen Duryea

Daily Bruin Staff

At a hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court Wednesday, a
judge threw out much of a multi-million dollar lawsuit filed
against the University of California Regents and UCLA.

Philip Garcia, a former visiting professor in the Chicana/o
studies department, filed suit against the regents, the students’
association, the association’s Communications Board and the Daily
Bruin in June, 1995. Garcia alleges that a university investigation
into allegations of sexual harassment, brought against him by
several students and at least one staff member in 1993, was
mishandled.

Although the lawsuit against the regents has been dismissed, the
charge that the Daily Bruin defamed the plaintiff in a June, 1994
article still stands. The hearing on the motion to dismiss the
portion of the lawsuit naming the Bruin and the Communications
Board will take place next week.

In an additional hearing held Wednesday, Judge David Perez
levied $1,820 in sanctions against Garcia and his attorneys for a
failure to serve the defendants within the 60-day time frame set by
the court. The regents attorney will receive a quarter of the
sanctions, and the remaining $1,365 will go to the attorney for the
Communications Board and student media.

The lawsuit was thrown out as a result of the regents’ motion to
dismiss, which claimed that Garcia had not pursued all
administrative options within the university prior to bringing the
case to court. The motion argued that Garcia had never filed a
formal complaint with the university, and therefore had no right to
sue.

"There are no allegations in the proceeding that he exhausted
all his administrative remedies," said Judge Alan Haber, adding
that Garcia had not even begun to resolve his complaints with the
university.

Haber maintained that Garcia’s allegations did not warrant an
opportunity to amend his complaint, claiming it would be "a waste
of time."

"The plaintiff (Garcia) is free to file a lawsuit if at some
time he can allege that he has exhausted all administrative
remedies," Haber said.

Attorney for the plaintiff John Younesi, of the firm Novian,
Novian & Younesi, could not be reached for comment after the
hearing.

At the hearing, regents attorney Judith Islas argued that the
regents were justified in requesting that the judge dismiss the
suit.

"The regents have the right," Islas said. "The plaintiff
(Garcia) hasn’t initiated any administrative procedures."

After the hearing, Islas expressed satisfaction with the judge’s
ruling.

"The regents are very pleased with the judge’s correct ruling to
sustain the demurrer (motion to dismiss) without leave to amend,"
Islas said.

However, Aaron Weitzman of Novian, Novian & Younesi, who
presented Garcia’s case at the hearings, argued that his client had
reason to believe that the proper administrative procedures were
already under way.

The university’s investigation into the sexual harassment
allegations against Garcia has already lasted nearly three years, a
fact that met with some criticism from Judge Haber.

"I am baffled that there has been no resolution of the claims,"
Haber said.

In the sanctions hearing before Judge Perez, Weitzman argued
that the defendants were served late due to Garcia’s attempt to
resolve the matter out of court. Garcia had hoped to avoid the
"tremendous expense" of a court case, Weitzman said.

"We were nonmaliciously dedicated in attempting to resolve (this
case) outside the walls of the courthouse," Weitzman said, adding
that the university had failed to comply with repeated requests for
information, making it difficult for Garcia to carry out
administrative procedure.

Attorneys for all defendants claimed that Garcia and his
lawyers’ delay in serving the suit has created unnecessary
obstacles for their clients.

Islas argued that Garcia’s excessive delay ­ waiting eight
months after the original filing date to serve the defendants
­ indicated a "clear lack of respect of court processes." She
also claimed that the plaintiff intentionally chose to serve the
regents only one business day before the first status conference,
held two months ago.

Timothy Alger of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, who represents the
students and the students’ association Communications Board, argued
that Garcia’s delay in serving the defendants with the lawsuit was
a strategic decision calculated to impede the students’ ability to
defend themselves. Many of the student reporters and editors
involved in the production of the June 1994 article have since
graduated and left the area.

"We were left without any knowledge of any lawsuit until the
last business day before the status conference," Alger said.

Alger expressed satisfaction with the judge’s decision to
sanction Garcia and his attorneys.

"This shows the plaintiff can’t just disregard the rules," Alger
said. "The court is not going to put up with it."