Litigation Goes On: In case you’re wondering, litigation surrounding the Santa Barbara News-Press and owner Wendy McCaw is still wending through the courts.
On Wednesday, the California 2nd District Court in Ventura heard McCaw’s appeal of an arbitrator’s award of attorney’s fees to former News-Press editor Jerry Roberts, now amounting to about $900,000, including interest.
“We feel pretty good about the way the hearing went,” said appeals specialist Herb Fox, representing Roberts.
The court has up to 90 days to make a ruling. Any appeal from that would go to the California Supreme Court, which accepts relatively few cases.
In her appeal, McCaw contended that the arbitrator who ruled on dueling claims by the owner and her former editor filed her decision after the deadline, thereby invalidating it.
The ugly battle goes back to July 6, 2006, when Roberts resigned on grounds that McCaw intolerably interfered with the news. Several other editors and this writer resigned then same day. After Roberts then spoke out at a public meeting, McCaw filed a $25 million breach of contract action, claiming that Roberts was to blame for the paper’s sagging public image following the turmoil.
Roberts blasted the arbitration action by the wealthy McCaw as “nothing more than an attempt to silence me and to threaten my family’s financial future in retaliation for speaking out about ethics at the paper.” McCaw’s legal campaign was estimated at $2.4 million.
The arbitrator, Deborah Rothman, declined to award damages to either party. At the time, then-News-Press attorney Barry Cappello slammed the award of legal fees to Roberts as a “miscarriage of justice” and vowed to reverse it.
Rothman said McCaw, represented by Cappello, “fought each and every issue with equal ferocity, frequently proceeding in a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners, go-for-broke, leave-no-stone-unturned campaign to punish Roberts for [the newspaper’s] public drubbing.
“McCaw is capable of great vindictiveness and appears to relish the opportunity to wield her considerable wealth and power in furtherance of what she believes to be righteous causes,” Rothman wrote. Commented Roberts at the time of the February 2010 ruling, “The award is a decisive victory for ethical journalism.”
In a separate case, the National Labor Relations Board ruled last summer that McCaw illegally fired eight reporters for union activities and must offer them rehiring and back pay. They are Melinda Burns, John Zant, Dawn Hobbs, Anna Davison, Melissa Evans, Rob Kuznia, and Barney McManigal. McCaw is appealing to a Washington, D.C., federal court. A decision is expected by the end of the year.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
"A decision is expected by the end of the year"....wait isn't it February right now? Also, isn't the NLRB in it's own giant dispute because of some appointments made that people are having a cow over? Whatever way this turns out, (I know who I am routing for!) it is ridiculous how this thing has been drug out.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2012 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bimbo, the controversy surrounding the authority of the current NLRB members appointed at recess by the president last month does not affect the validity of the Board's decision issued last August, which is now on appeal at the DC Circuit. The delay continues, but there is hope for positive results by the end of the year. This delay -- exacerbated by the dysfunction in Washington -- is one of the major weaknesses in labor law, fully exploited by the ethically-challenged labor lawyers who work for Wendy.
JoeHill (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2012 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ethically-challenged labor lawyers.... oh that narrow's it down! :) I am glad it doesn't affect the decision. DC Circuit needs to get their A$$es in gear.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2012 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What's with the "arbitrator’s award of attorney’s fees to former News-Press editor Jerry Roberts, now amounting to about $900,00, including interest." What kind of number is that? Is that suppose to be $90,000, $900,00 or $900.00? Please edit the copy.
TrailHacker (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2012 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
$900,000.00 is the correct number.
JoeHill (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2012 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a travesty of justice that Jerry's been dragged along through all these years. Wendy, show some humanity.
GregMohr (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2012 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Greg, sadly, Wendy isn't in the humanity business. As long as she can pay her lawyers to keep justice at bay and hope to thwart and frustrate her former and current staff -- even at the cost of her and their ethics -- she will. At least so far. Ultimately, that attrition strategy will fail, and time is in the final analysis not on her side. But her extraordinary resources free her to be less fair, rational or just for far longer than most.
JoeHill (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2012 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)