Laserfiche WebLink
tO provide defense to policemen upon request (Stanford <br />Daily vs. Zurcher, 366 F.Supp. 18, page 25; and <br />MacDonald vs. Musick, 425 F2d, 373 at 376). <br />NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES <br />RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />Section 1. Authorizes the City Attorney to advise officers <br /> <br /> Yates and Crabtree that the City will obtain defense <br /> counsel for said officers provided that in providing <br /> said defense the officers shall reasonably cooperate <br /> in good faith with the City and the City appointed <br /> attorney in the defense of the action of Lopez vs. <br /> the City of Pleasanton, et al. <br /> <br />Section 2. The City agrees that it will pay any claim , judg- <br /> ment, settlement or compromise rendered against offi- <br /> cers Yates and Crabtree in conjunction with the afore- <br /> mentioned suit provided it is determined that the act <br /> or omission giving rise to said suit against the offi- <br /> cers occurred within the scope of employment of said <br /> officers by the City of Pleasanton. The City of <br /> Pleasanton cannot pay any part of a claim or judgment <br /> which is rendered against the officers for punitive or <br /> exemplary damages. <br /> <br /> Section 3. The City Attorney shall undertake the investigation <br /> of legal counsel acceptable to the City Attorney's <br /> office and officers Yates and Crabtree and advise the <br /> Council of the individual to be retained as well as the <br /> cost of such retention. <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br /> <br />