Mendocino Superior Court Judge Ann Moorman rejected a bid for a change of venue by attorneys for the County of Mendocino, who argued Friday that intense local news coverage of Auditor Chamise Cubbison’s contentious civil lawsuit against the Board of Supervisors prejudices the outcome.
Moorman brushed aside criticism in court filings made by a San Francisco law firm about local public scrutiny, including county lawyers raising questions about her own impartiality and that of other local judges.
“My fellow judges in this County and I decide outcome of cases based on the records developed during court proceedings,” declared Moorman. A judicial canon of ethics that demands judges stay “immune from public influence” is the bedrock of her judicial practices, said Moorman.
For now, the Cubbison civil case will continue in Moorman’s court. After denying the venue change, Moorman scheduled more legal briefings for August. She then put attorneys on notice that she wants to bring the case to a close by fall.
“I expect to hear oral arguments to be made by then,” said Moorman.
The Cubbison civil case has dragged on since December 2023.
Last February Cubbison resumed her duties as Auditor after District Attorney David Eyster filed felony criminal charges against her and the county’s former Payroll Manager Paula June Kennedy. The charges focused on $68,000 in extra pay for Kennedy. Moorman tossed the case at the end of a lengthy and frequently delayed preliminary hearing.
Cubbison’s attention then shifted to her efforts to recover 17 months of back pay and benefits from the County, and for damages to her professional reputation.
So far, the County has spent more than a quarter of a million dollars resisting her claims. Late last May the Board increased the contract value with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore in San Francisco where attorney Jacob is a managing partner from $200k, which they had exceeded at the time, to $400k, while extending the LCW contract for another two years to an amazing June of 2027.
The latest strategy was making a bid to move the Cubbison civil case to Marin County, creating more costly delays.
County attorney Morin Jacob of the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore did not respond to a written request Friday for comment on Moorman’s denial of the change of venue.
However, Jacob claimed in court filings on June 12 that a change of venue “is appropriate because of the extensive community and unfolding judicial bias against the County related to this matter.”
Jacob contended that the “overwhelming and slanted nature of the media coverage – regurgitating allegations of County misconduct without balance or scrutiny – has created a hostile environment that continues to intensify.”
“As this drumbeat of prejudicial reporting grows louder and more persistent, the risk to the integrity of this proceeding will only increase, making immediate transfer the only path forward to safeguard the County’s right to a truly impartial forum,” argued Jacob.
Cubbison lawyer Therese Cannata of San Francisco argued against the venue change, calling it “blatant forum shopping” in a formal court filing.
“It is driven by procedural gamesmanship and seeks to manipulate the legal system for strategic advantage,” said Cannata.
Cannata noted that a change of venue should be brought at the earlier possible time in a legal proceeding, instead of the County waiting 17 months.
Also, Cannata argued that “even if the County could demonstrate anything more than local news reports about events affecting a local elected official, the County cannot point to facts or legal authority to support transfer (of a civil writ proceeding) that will be decided by a judge, not a jury.”
Lastly, Cubbison’s lawyer ripped the County claim that news coverage and a judicial bias was creating public prejudice.
“The County appears to be claiming without a shred of evidence, that the judge hearing this civil writ proceeding has been influenced by local press coverage or community opinion,” said Cannata.
An irony is that Cubbison “was and is subject to the same, if not more public attention and potential bias.”
Cannata said the fact of the matter is that Cubbison was “scrutinized and her reputation smeared when she was suddenly suspended from her elected position and criminally charged with mismanaging public funds.”
County attorney Jacob in her most recent court filings wants the civil litigation to focus only on the narrow interpretation of a disputed county statute surrounding whether a “county treasurer” can be suspended if criminally charged. Jacob, who advised county Supervisors in October 2023, they could immediately suspend Cubbison without pay after she was criminally charged, seeks a “straightforward statutory analysis.”
Cubbison lawyer Cannata, however, contends the disputed state statute does not authorize a suspension without pay.
It also does not, Cannata argues in her formal response, “authorize the County CEO and District Attorney to withhold evidence that would have made the suspension illegal in all respects.”
Cannata said the Board of Supervisors’ hasty decision to order Cubbison immediately suspended without a duly noticed public hearing was wrong.
It “created a symphony of unlawful conduct for which the County now must be held to account,” Cannata concludes.
Moorman scoffed at the County’s complaints that comments she made in dismissing criminal charges against Cubbison, and the brief appearance of two judges in the courtroom at separate times during the preliminary hearing somehow constituted the entire court bench was biased against the Board of Supervisors.
Moorman said she personally doesn’t read local media accounts surrounding civil and criminal cases, and that she strictly adheres to the judicial canon of ethics.
Moorman is a widely respected attorney with experience in civil litigation and criminal cases in state and federal courts. She was elected in 2010 to the Mendocino County Superior Court and has been re-elected unopposed twice.
“Change Of Venue In Cubbison Civil Case Denied”
STRIKE ONE…!!!
Laz
Tax dollars at work?
DA Eyster, who instigated this mess, has apparently dropped off the score board.
The DA and the BOS really dropped the ball on this one. Sorry that the tax payers will have to pay now. When our elected officials screw up it always the taxpayers who are held responsible and foot the bill. I guess it’s time to replace the whole bunch of them.
Overall Judge Moorman’s ruling was absolutely the correct conclusion. There is no bias or preconceived opinion toward the County personnel. The actions of our County elected officials warranted the dismissal of the hastily prepared DA C. David Eyster lawsuit filed in December 2023.
The County’s continued legal fees since the lawsuit dismissal border on financial irresponsibility. To fare we, the taxpayers, are on the hook for $250K and unfortunately, that maybe just the beginning.
While it should not require any action from Judge Moorman, failure of our County elected officials to reimburse Chamise Cubbison for her salary, benefits & legal fees for the 17 month hearing, ending in a dismissal in February (4 months ago), I did hope the Judge would make mention of it, and maybe even order it up.
The recent ruling by Judge Ann Moorman denying the County of Mendocino’s bid for a change of venue in the Cubbison civil case highlights the ongoing pattern of judicial manipulation and defensive legal tactics employed by this county to avoid accountability. However, with other recent federal civil rights lawsuits filed against Mendocino County- re: Hart vs Mendocino County- 25-cv-04501-RMI , that new lawsuit highlights a far more pervasive and systemic problem for this county—one involving extensive corruption and egregious violations of law, constitutional rights, deliberate medical neglect of a documented disability, fabricated charges, unlawful prolonged solitary confinement, and malicious destruction of people’s property, things this county and some of these very actors have been accused of before. The Cubbison is a prime example that re: Hart vs Mendocino County – 25-cv-04501-RMI is valid and they should highlight this Cubbison case to prove examples of the unlawful and deceitful way this county operates.
While the Cubbison case involves procedural disputes and allegations of biased media coverage, Hart vs Mendocino County- 25-cv-04501-RMI reveals deep-rooted corruption and repeated abuses of power. The scale and severity of claims presented in that case pose a significantly greater threat to the County’s legal standing and public reputation, as those claims directly challenge the integrity of county officials and law enforcement under color of law.
Together, these cases expose a judicial system resistant to transparency and reform—yet the additioanl federal lawsuit brings undeniable evidence of systemic misconduct that demands urgent scrutiny and action from this county board, this county needs to have federal oversight, a complete gutting of the current system and changes far beyond the limited scope of the Cubbison litigation.
“Hart vs Mendocino County – 25-cv-04501-RMI is valid”
CV
There are RICO cases pending against current and previous elected officials floating around somewhere. I wonder when or if they will ever surface. Or is the fix already in…?
However, the significance of Ms. Cubbison’s case is the low levels that the hired help and some currently and previously elected County individuals have stooped to ruin an innocent woman’s professional and personal reputation, who is also a duly elected County official.
And this whole mess started over a bar and food tab at the Broiler Steak House in Redwood Valley, for a “training session, ” AKA a party.
The word on the street is that a significant portion of the County population can’t wait for the Civil trial to begin.
Ask around,
Laz