As the City of Richmond and the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) proceed to close a sale of 82 acres of Point Molate, no one is addressing the specter of ongoing litigation that could bankrupt the City or severely impact the EBRPD.

The lawsuit Winehaven Legacy, LLC (SunCal) v. City of Richmond is alive and well, although the City is fighting a losing battle to extract itself.

Just last week, Suncal filed a Motion to Compel Production of Improperly Withheld Documents - currently calendared to be heard March 25, 2025. The City is trying to keep Suncal from accessing documents related to the financial analyses cited by the City Council as the basis for withdrawing from from the agreement to sell to SunCal. The City has been denying access to SunCal under a theory of attorney-client privilege - which is a huge stretch and a gamble the City is likely to lose.

The introduction states:

Winehaven brings this Motion to put an end to the City’s improper withholding of thousands of relevant communications between the City and four outside financial consultants. The City retained these consultants to conduct financial analyses related to Winehaven’s proposed financing for the development of property at Point Molate. None of their contracts provided that the consultants would assist the City Attorney or anyone else in the provision of legal advice. When the consultants completed their work, the City publicly disclosed their reports. Yet, in this litigation the City has withheld hundreds of communications with these consultants on baseless privilege grounds."

Meanwhile, the City filed another motion to dismiss (motion for judgment on the pleadings) - this time based on the CEQA lawsuit outcome (the City lost its first motion to dismiss).   It is set to be heard on October 5, 2024. The motion is likely to fail because part of Suncal's claim is that the City worked in bad faith to undermine the agreement, including directing the City Attorney to side with the CEQA Plaintiffs suing Richmond.

The term sheet that outlines the tentative agreement between the City and EBRPD is unclear about which party will continue to fund defense of these lawsuits as well as bear the costs of a loss. The term sheet simply states, “The District acknowledges that it is acquiring the Property in an “AS IS, WHERE IS, AND WITH ALL FAULTS condition. The operation and maintenance agreement between the District and City will include appropriate indemnification language to address the parties' respective responsibilities during the one (1) year following Closing and thereafter, pursuant to the commitments contained herein.

A good history of the politics and litigation involving Point Molate can be found at https://www.rnunite.org/blog/council-majority-poised-to-give-away-point-molate-for-400-risks-millions-in-lawsuits.