Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Monteiro case top ten but not top 10?

1. Introductory.
2. Letter to MLW Editor.
3. Reporter: Top ten award, but will not correct list.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introductory.

The case of Malvina Monteiro is yet another excellent example to put the lie to the City of Cambridge’s non-stop claims to progressive sainthood.

The city council is clearly anti-environment while using their massive machine to lie that they are pro-environment.

Looking at the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is very difficult to say that the situation is any different with regard to civil rights.

Judge and jury found that Cambridge destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro, a black Cape Verdean woman serving as head of their Police Review Board. They found that this was in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The judge’s opinion did a very good job of proving the word “reprehensible” with regard to the City of Cambridge.

On reading the judge’s opinion, which is reported on this blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, I came to an opinion as to the action which would be appropriate for a pro-civil rights city council.

That action would be to vote to obtain an order from the judge firing the City Manager without pension and without golden parachute.

The Cambridge City Council has not so voted. They have not even been faced with a motion to fire the City Manager without pension and without golden parachute. Much the worse, the Cambridge City Council, with this excellent opinion in front of them, voted to fund an appeal.

The jury verdict was for slightly over $4.5 million including $3.5 million penal. The judgment was for slightly over $5 million.

I, as an attorney, religiously read Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

MLW does an annual top ten awards list. I looked for Monteiro in the 2008 list and in the 2009 list. Neither time was it reported on the list although the size of the award would seem to indicate that it should be.

2. Letter to MLW Editor.

I sent the following letter off to the MLW Editor early this morning, February 2, by email:


Henriette Campagne, Esq.
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Dear Ms. Campagne,

I could be wrong, but I am surprised that the case of Malvina Monteiro, et. al. v. City of Cambridge et al, Middlesex Superior #MICV2001-02737 did not appear in your January 25 report on the largest verdicts of 2009. I thought that last year I was surprised that it did not appear on the list of 2008 verdicts, so I looked for it again very deliberately.

Jury verdict came down on May 23, 2008 for slightly over $4.5 million with $3.5 million penal. At the time of your 2008 report, Monteiro was in post trial motions. Since then judgment has been entered on June 2, 2009 for slightly over $5 million with interest and the case is now in post judgment motions.

This is the case in which Judge and Jury found that the Cambridge City Manager fired this Black Cape Verdean Woman who was the head of the Cambridge Police Review Board in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The key judge’s opinion was notable for the use of the word “reprehensible” with regard to the Cambridge City Manager.

I note that case #4 this year, $6.4 million, is in post trial motions, and that Monteiro would appear to fall between case #6, $5.26 million and #7, $3.9 million.

My memory was that I looked last year and that it would have fallen in the top ten then but was not reported.

Is my memory wrong? Or should one of the two reports be corrected?

Thank you for whatever input you can provide.

3. Reporter: Top ten award, but will not correct list.

This morning I got a call from an MLW reporter who indicated that Monteiro should have been listed in the 2008 list of top ten awards of 2008 because the jury verdict came down in that year and the award was large enough.

He stated that the lawyer obtaining the award has been honored by MLW because of the case but that their list would not be corrected.