![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/GVWire-Ad-Get-our-mobile-app-1280x90-1-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nJanz said it is standard practice to ask a judge \u2014 in this case federal Judge Kirk E. Sherriff \u2014 to review a verdict. Because asking for a review is procedural in nature, the city attorney does not need a vote from the city council.<\/p>\n
Janz expects to make the request next week. The city has 30 days from the date the verdict was entered into the record \u2014 March 11 \u2014 to file an appeal. If Sherriff reviews the award, the 30-day deadline would be paused.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe council is not yet in a position to make a decision on the appeal because it is waiting on the judge,\u201d Janz said.<\/p>\n
At last week\u2019s city council meeting, several speakers \u2014 including former City Councilmember Cynthia Sterling \u2014 asked the city to pay the settlement. City Councilmember Miguel Arias has also publicly encouraged the city not to appeal.<\/p>\n
Insurance Policy Covers $10 Million<\/p>\n
City Manager Georgeanne White said the city\u2019s insurance policy with carrier Safety National would cover $10 million of the verdict, but there are risks. The policy in place at the time of the 2019 incident says the city pays the first $3 million, the insurance pays the next $10 million, and the city pays the balance.<\/p>\n
\u201cHowever, I must tell you, we run the risk of losing coverage and control of our lawsuits if we don\u2019t appeal the decision,\u201d White told GV Wire.<\/p>\n
An appeal is not required by the policy, but the city could risk losing the policy or its independence in defending future lawsuits.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe insurance language says we have to exercise the utmost good faith and diligence in claims handling. It also says they have the right to take over the defense and settlement of all of our claims with them. If they take over the defense, that puts us in a precarious position when trying to renew our policy or get a new policy with the same terms as our current policy,\u201d White said.<\/p>\n
White said any share of the city\u2019s settlement payment would come from the risk fund.<\/p>\n
City Challenging Federal Court Costs<\/p>\n
While the city council debates its next step on whether to appeal the verdict, its attorneys filed a motion objecting to court costs.<\/p>\n
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, on behalf of the plaintiffs, sent the city a bill of $49,702<\/a> for items such as clerk fees, serving summons and subpoenas, and recording transcripts. The latter was the most expensive line item at $31,011.<\/p>\n