Judge denies ask to throw out open meeting case against Riv. water company

Riverside gadfly Jason Hunter's lawsuit alleging the Gage Canal Company falls under California's open meetings act was not thrown out as requested by the company.

Hunter argues that the Gage Canal meetings should be open to the public under the Brown Act, because the company is mostly owned by the city.

Gage Canal General Manager Benjamin Alms testified on Aug. 22 that Riverside owns 61% of the company's shares. The Gage Canal Company provides 24% of Riverside’s water, Riverside Spokesperson Phil Pitchford told The Raincross Gazette in May.

Hunter's arguments that Riverside gave Gage Canal funds, and that Riverside City Council and Riverside Public Utilities jointly appoint a member of the Gage Canal Board of Directors, was enough to keep the case moving forward, Riverside Superior Judge Daniel Ottolia ruled Friday, Nov. 21.

"The allegations in Paragraph 16, when taken as true, are sufficient to support the application of the Brown Act to the Gage Canal under Govt. Code § 54952(c)(1)(B)," Ottolia ruled.

The law cited by Ottolia supplies one of the many definitions of a legislative body under the Brown Act: A board that governs a private corporation that receives funds from a local agency and whose governing body includes an agency member who was appointed by the agency.

In response to Hunter's claims, Gage Canal disputed the process by which the person joined the Gage Canal Board of Directors. The member was elected, not appointed, they argue. Their response was not appropriate, Ottolia ruled. The company had asked him to throw out the case on the basis that, even if Hunter's claims were true, Hunter would have no case. Any argument against the facts, instead of the law, is therefore inappropriate at this point.

"Gage Canal does not challenge the insufficiency of these allegations but instead contends that the allegations are factually incorrect. Bringing in extrinsic facts on (this motion) is improper," Ottolia wrote.

Hunter agreed to Riverside's request to remove themselves from the Brown Act cause of action. A third cause of action against both the city and the company, alleging Gage Canal's bylaws were not enforced, was voluntarily dropped on Nov. 19.

Ottolia threw out a second claim by Hunter, that Gage Canal and Riverside violated the California Public Records Act. Hunter did not include any facts as to what documents he requested, or what Gage Canal's response was, Ottolia wrote. Hunter has the opportunity to refile his complaint with additional information within 30 days.

Hunter had attempted to join Gage Canal's Board of Directors through two share transfers initiated by existing shareholders. Those transfers never went through. He attempted to attend board meetings, including once as a guest of an existing shareholder, but the meeting was paused until he left. Gage Canal filed a workplace restraining order against Hunter, which Ottolia overruled on Aug. 31.

Alms, the company's general manager, testified during a restraining order hearing on Aug. 22 that he was worried Hunter might bring a knife, and that he was threatened by Hunter’s insistence to not leave a shareholder meeting until a law enforcement officer convinced him to leave.

June Monroe, the Gage Canal attorney, asked Alms why he was afraid of Hunter.

“He is bigger than me. His emotions,” Alms replied.

In redirect, Hunter’s attorney, Chad Morgan asked the same question.

“He refused to leave. What’s next?” Alms asked.

“You tell me. What’s next?” Morgan replied.

“I don’t know. He might bring a knife,” Alms said.

Two Gage Canal Company shareholders, Larry Brock and Richard Moslenko, initiated share transfers to Hunter shortly before 2024 and 2025 annual shareholder meetings. Neither transfer went through.

Brock testified the same day that he wanted Hunter to represent him as a minority shareholder, whom he felt was not properly served by the company.

“I have a pump system, and they would not ever tell us when the water would be out, and if I had my pump running, we could destroy the pump. They wouldn’t email. They wouldn’t let us know when they were cleaning the canal inside. I’d have a pump running, and it would draw the sludge up into the pump, and I had to clean the pump. The meetings that I went to, those questions were being raised, and there was nothing that ever happened. I was willing to give Jason a share so that he could perhaps get on the board,” Brock testified.

Hunter is a frequent commenter at Riverside city council meetings, the chairperson of __Riverside’s Neighbors Better Together, and a whistleblower in the _corruption case_of former Riverside Public Utilities General Manager David Wright. He testified on Aug. 22 that he wanted to investigate Gage Canal.

“Everything there (at Gage Canal) was clandestine and secret, and I wanted to learn more,” Hunter testified at the hearings for the order.

The restraining order petition was part of a pattern Hunter testified Riverside city employees conduct against whistleblowers.

“They (Riverside) try to show the whistleblowers, the men, as wild and aggressive, and the women as crazy,” Hunter testified.

Riverside water company staff testify for restraining order against potential shareholderFour employees of Riverside’s Gage Canal Company, which distributes water, testified Aug. 22 that Jason Hunter caused them anxiety and fear during his attempts to join the company’s Board of Directors, and that they needed a workplace restraining order against Hunter. Hunter is a frequent commenter at RiversideInland Empire Law WeeklyAidan McGloinRiverside company denied restraining order against attempted shareholderRiverside Superior Judge Danial Ottolia denied the Gage Canal Company’s petition for a workplace restraining order against Riverside whistleblower Jason Hunter on Aug. 29. The decision itself does not change much for the company majority-owned by the city of Riverside, but it may open up discussions between Hunter andInland Empire Law WeeklyAidan McGloin