Is Shoreline settlement in the cards? Is Shoreline settlement in the cards? (January 13, 2006)

Council members speak out on impending trial against Clear Channel

By Jon Wiener

After lawyers for Clear Channel failed in their effort to limit the scope of the city's lawsuit over the operation of Shoreline Amphitheatre, city leaders are waiting to see if the company will offer the first settlement proposal in the long-running case.

The alternative is to proceed to a jury trial over charges of racketeering, theft of public funds and false claims, where Clear Channel will risk fines in the tens of millions and months of bad publicity.

A superior court judge recently ruled in favor of the city on several motions for summary judgment, allowing the bulk of the city's charges -- many of which carry punitive damages and attorney's fees if they hold up -- to go forward. The same judge refused Clear Channel's request last fall to block the city from using the results of an audit report to evict the company. The rulings appear to have tipped the scales in the city's favor, and could put pressure on the company to settle.

"They can't possibly go to a jury and say, 'Here's the accounting report, and we don't like it,'" said council member Tom Means.

Means, an economics professor at San Jose State University, has testified as an expert witness in several accounting dispute cases. He said that if the company is intent on proceeding to trial, it better come up with a stronger response to the city's audit. So far, all the company has said publicly about the audit, which detailed $3.6 million in back rent and penalties, is that it is "misleading."
Precedent for settlement elsewhere

In Hillsborough County, Fla., the environmental planning commission filed suit against Clear Channel after investigating repeated noise complaints at the Ford Amphitheater and finding that the venue did not match the plans the company had submitted. The pre-trial maneuverings would wind up costing the county more than $600,000.

After a judge rejected Clear Channel's claim of sovereign immunity -- that it could not be sued because it operated on State Fair Authority land and was itself the state -- the company lawyers who had even gone so far as to depose the opposing counsel approached the commission with a settlement deal.

"I'm surprised," planning commission lawyer Rick Tschantz told the Voice at the time. "They really want to solve this. They just want this to end... They want to show good faith, they want to mend things with the community."

Also, Clear Channel may be more hesitant to proceed to trial and risk punitive damages after a Chicago jury issued a $90 million verdict against them in an antitrust case last spring. The total was later reduced on appeal.
'Worth considering'

Mountain View City Council members said they do not expect a settlement in the Shoreline case, but added they would consider one if offered. Incoming Mayor Nick Galiotto called the case a "distraction," and said he would like to resolve it as soon as possible.

Galiotto and other council members, who have repeatedly described the case as being about public accountability, said they would look closely at any settlement offer that achieves that.

"Clearly there would be a number, but I don't what that number is," said council member Mike Kasperzak. "My goal is to look out for the interest of the taxpayers."

Kasperzak said he is not out to punish Clear Channel.

"It's not really about being right or wrong. It's about making sure that the people of Mountain View get what they're entitled to," he said. "If Clear Channel recognizes that and is willing to compensate the taxpayers, then it's worth considering an offer."

E-mail Jon Wiener at jwiener@mv-voice.com

E-mail a friend a link to this story.