Eric Hugelman case settled

mammothtownoffices“Settlement and Release of all Claims in the case of Eric Hugelman v. Town of Mammoth Lakes”

(Press Release – Town of Mammoth Lakes)

The long standing legal matter between Eric Hugelman v. Town of Mammoth Lakes has been settled. The settlement includes the full release of all claims against the Town and past employees. The agreement provides for a payment of $215,000 to the plaintiff. Payment is shared by the Town and the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA), with the Town’s share being $65,000. The settlement was reached following consultation with the CJPIA’s legal counsel and the Town’s Attorney. “These types of cases are never simple, time consuming and potentially costly,” Stated Mayor Pro Tern Jo Bacon. “To have this matter settled and behind us allows the Town to focus our time and resources on higher priorities. Eliminating this distraction from staff, Council and our employee is a positive step and eliminates what has been and would continue to be a long drawn out, expensive legal matter.”

The legal action followed the termination of Mr. Hugelman from Town employment in August 2009. Mr. Hugelman exercised his employee rights and was reinstated following an arbitrator’s finding regarding the termination. The settlement does not imply or state that the Town is at fault or had any wrong doing. The suit focused on past compensation and benefits issues. Ending the litigation and avoiding additional costs to the Town even if the Town prevailed was determined to be the prudent course of action for the Town. A copy of the settlement agreement is provided.



In this Agreement:

A. The terms “I,” “me,” “my,” “myseIf~” “plaintiff’ and “claimant” means: ERIC HUGELMAN.

B. I agree to the terms of this Agreement on behalf of myself, my spouse, my dependents, my heirs, my executors, my administrators, and my assigns.

C. The terms “Releasees” and “Defendants” means: TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, RANDY SCHIENLE, and ROB CLARK.

D. “Releasees” also means the officers, directors, officials, agents, insurers, attorneys, employees, representatives, successors and assigns of each person or entity named in section 1C, above.

2. SUBJECT OF AGREEMENT There is presently pending in the Mono County Superior Court, South County Branch, an

action entitled ERIC HUGELMAN v. THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, et al., Civil Action No. CV 110047 (consolidated with CV 110093).

I and Releasees now wish to settle the aforesaid action and release, discharge, and terminate any and all claims, demands, controversies, causes of action, damages, rights, liabilities,andobligationsbetweenthem. Assuch,thepartieshaveagreedasfollows:

Terms and conditions of the settlement are: 1. The Town, on behalf of itself, Randy Schienle, and Rob Clark, shall pay plaintiff

and his counsel of record, jointly, a total of Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($215,000); 2. The plaintiff shall dismiss his entire litigation, with prejudice; 3. The plaintiff shall sign a Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims which

counsel for the Town shall prepare and send to plaintiff’s counsel by February 14, 2014; 4. The issuance of settlement funds will take place within 30 days after plaintiff signs and returns to counsel for the Town the Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims

and a completed W-9 form;

5. The Town shall confirm that all PERS and PARS payments have been made to plaintiff concerning lapsed periods of payments and service credit including, but not limited to the period from date of termination in August 2009 up to and including the date of reinstatement in March 2011; and

6. All parties shall bear their own costs and fee, except that defendants shall pay the mediator for 3 hours of mediation work she has performed since the mediation on July 15, 2013.

3. RELEASE In exchange for the waiver of rights of Releasees described herein, I agree to the terms of

this Agreement and give up all present and future claims and rights I may have against Releasees or their property as a result of the incident described in Section 2, above.

In exchange for this waiver of rights, the Releasees likewise agree to the terms of this Agreement and give up all present and future claims and rights they may have against me as a result of the incident described in Section 2, above.

4. DISMISSALOFPRESENTACTION I direct my attorney to dismiss, with prejudice, the entire action styled as follows:

ERIC HUGELMAN v. THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, et al. Mono County Superior Court — South County Branch CV 110047 (consolidated with CV 110093)

Title: Court: Case No.: Releasees and I agree that the settlement between us is in good faith and that no

cross-actions will be asserted or maintained. To the extent that any cross-actions are currently pending, Releasees will dismiss these cross-actions.

5. WARRANTY A. Authority to Release. The plaintiff represents and promises Releasees that

plaintiff has full legal authority to sign this Agreement for: 1. Plaintiff and all parties included in Section IB; and

2. All other persons or entities who have any interest in plaintiff’s claims or rights as a result of the incident described in Section 2, above. This includes any liens anyone may have on plaintiffs recovery in this matter.

B. Hold Harmless. Plaintiff does hereby, and for his heirs, legal representatives, agents, successors in interest and assigns, irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and forever discharge the Town of Mammoth Lakes, Randy Schienle, and Rob Clark from any and all claims, actions, causes of actions, rights, demands, debts, obligations, damages or accountings

of whatever nature which he has or believes he has against the Town of Mammoth Lakes, Randy Schienle, and Rob Clark by reason of, or arising out of, any matters, acts or omissions described or referred to above, or out of any other matters of whatever nature, whether known or unknown, occurring prior to the execution date of this Agreement.

C. PartiestoBearOwnFeesandCosts. Allpartiesacknowledgeandagreethatthey shall bear their own attorney’s fees and court costs in connection with said lawsuit, including this Compromise, Settlement and Release and any Mediation fees.

6. WAIVER OF SECTION 1542 RIGHTS A. Section1542. ThepartiestothisAgreementalsogiveupalloftheirrights,ifany,

under the provisions of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads: A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.

B. Section 1542 Explained. The parties to this Agreement understand, and their attorneys have explained the importance, meaning, and legal effect of this code section and this entire Agreement.

C. Take Chances as to Unknown. The parties to this Agreement know they may have serious injuries or losses they know nothing about, but as to them, they take their chances.

D. Parties Would Not Agree Unless Settlement Includes Unknown and Unanticipated. The parties understand that each of them would not have agreed to the terms of this Agreement if this Agreement did not cover property losses and personal injuries, illnesses or diseases which may be presently unknown and unanticipated.

7. THE PARTIES WILL HAVE NO FURTHER LIABILITY The parties to this Agreement understand and agree that they each shall have no further obligation or liability of any kind. The parties shall be completely and forever released. Each

party is to bear their own costs and fees of this litigation.

8. THE PARTIES NOT LIABLE The parties to this Agreement understand that this is a settlement of a disputed claim, and

that each of them still denies any liability to the other, and that no party is admitting liability by settling. Thisdocument,orthefactthatthereisasettlementofthependingclaims,shouldnotbe construed as evidence that liability against any party, or any of them, has been established.

Likewise, the contemplated dismissals, with prejudice, of the pending cross-actions in exchange for the consideration set forth above should not be so construed.

9. ATTORNEY’S FEES The parties to this Agreement agree that should any party hereto retain counsel for the

purposes of enforcing or preventing the breach of any provision contained hereof, or because of any provision hereof, or because of any failure of any representation or warranty contained herein, including but not limited to the institution of an action or proceeding to enforce any provision hereof, or for damages by reason of any alleged breach of provisions hereof, or for a declaration of rights or obligations hereunder, or for any other judicial determination (including arbitration), the prevailing party (whether at trial or on appeal) shall be entitled, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, to reimbursement of the losing party for all costs and expenses incurred thereby, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of such prevailing party.

10. GOVERNINGLAW The parties to this Agreement understand that this Agreement has been negotiated and

entered into in the State of California, and shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of California applied to contracts made in California by California domiciliaries to be wholly performed in California.

11. INTEGRATION The parties to this Agreement understand that this Agreement sets forth the entire

Agreement between themselves with regard to the subject matter hereof. All agreements, covenants, representations and warranties, express or implied, written or oral, of the parties with regard to the subject matter hereof are contained herein. No other agreements, covenants, representations and warranties, express or implied, oral or written, have been made between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. All prior and contemporaneous conversations, negotiations, covenants and warranties with respect to the subject matter hereof are waived, merged herein and superseded hereby. This is an integrated agreement.

12, COUNTERPARTS This document may be executed in any zizmbcr of counterparts aDd by diff~erent panics

on separate counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an adginal, and all of which, taken together, shall constitute but one and the same respective

13. READ AND REVIEWED AGREEMENT The parties hereto have iced this Agrecment or had it iced to tliçm,

~ Understand. The parties hereto understand the meaning and effect of this

Advised. Thepartiesheretohavebeenfillyandindependentlyadvisedbytheir D. Aeree. Thepartiesheretoagreetotheto of sAgreem~

C. icapective attorneys on the effect of this Agreement.



9 Responses to Eric Hugelman case settled

  1. Wondering? April 1, 2014 at 8:20 pm #

    Benett, could you please find out what the total legal fees paid by the town were in this case, start to finish?

  2. Rick O'Brien April 1, 2014 at 9:15 pm #

    I don’t have a law degree, so I gave up after the first 4 pages….besides, I thought this was all ancient history after Sgt. Hugelman was re-instated.

  3. Agreed April 2, 2014 at 7:29 am #

    Glad to see a resolution to this case and I hope some relief for all parties involved!

    I would also be interested in knowing what they legal costs were on this case Benett. Have a great day.

  4. wagonroad April 2, 2014 at 8:16 pm #

    And the Chief and Lt. who conspired to fire Eric get away scott free with full retkrement benefits, leaving the taxpayers to pay. Oh well! What’s for lunch?

  5. Background please April 2, 2014 at 10:09 pm #

    Please could the writer refresh our memories of what was the cause of Mr. Hugelman’s initial termination.

    • Benett Kessler April 2, 2014 at 11:10 pm #

      He was involved in an altercation at Rusty’s bar, along with another officer. He was terminated shortly after that. He was initially charged with a misdemeanor but then charges were dropped. As the press release says, he was reinstated after arbitration. This recent court action was over the amount of back pay.

  6. Once again April 2, 2014 at 11:06 pm #

    Once again this proves the town does not have a record of winning. i hope this is the last of the cases like this and that the town can run things a bit different. We can only hope.

    OPPS! but they just proved once again about being a bully tonight when the screwed some homeowner out of Thousands in TOT taxes that the homeowner claims is an illegal tax.
    I think I agree with him on that point only. The current town law does not provide the ability to charge TOT on a NON Transient use property. Someone will take this through the courts and the town will loose and it will open the floodgates.

  7. Gistine April 4, 2014 at 10:49 am #

    Hugelman comes out smelling like a rose. What a surprise.

  8. bankruptcy attorney mn reviews May 17, 2014 at 11:15 am #

    I always spent my half an hour to read this webpage’s content daily along with a mug
    of coffee.


Leave a Reply

KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design