Judge S. James Otero’s biography said he enjoys theater and boxing.
The Los Angeles Superior Court judge probably is getting his fill of both while trying to decide the fate of Measure F, the initiative designed to kill a planned commercial airport at El Toro.
Lawyers for and against the airport have filed briefs that stack about 4 feet tall. The briefs trade shots while delicately posturing around sensitive issues.
Judge Otero has twice postponed a decision on the challenge to the measure, which was passed by the voters in the March primary election. The next scheduled court date is Sept. 11, and both sides expect this date to stand firm.
“Everything turns on Judge Otero,” said Meg Waters, a spokeswoman for a coalition of nine cities opposed to the airport, the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority. “Everybody’s stalled waiting for Otero.”
Neither side is expecting the judge’s ruling to be the final say on El Toro, since the losing side is expected to file an appeal.
But Otero’s verdict is expected to set the parameters for what the county government can do at El Toro over the next two or three years, as appeals proceed.
Early Signs
Otero’s style and comments suggest that he will overturn at least portions of Measure F. The judge already has given a preliminary victory to airport supporters by issuing a temporary stay to permit the county to continue paying existing contracts for planning an airport at El Toro. Measure F would prohibit such spending. And his remarks in hearings have indicated that Otero will make this stay permanent.
But that’s only one section of Measure F, whose main thrust is to require voter approval by a two-thirds majority of any new airport, jail or toxic waste site in OC.
If the judge throws out the main provisions of Measure F, airport foes say they’ll not only appeal, they’ll go to the voters again.
If the judge upholds most of Measure F, it will be far more difficult for the county to realize the airport at El Toro. In fact, some airport proponents are ready to toss in the towel if that happens.
But others say they will not give up.
“The airport won’t be dead. You still have a process to abide by,” said Bruce Nestande, president of the leading pro-airport group, Citizens for Jobs and the Economy. “We won’t give up if the judge upholds Measure F. Nothing has changed concerning the demand for commercial aviation and the inadequacy of John Wayne Airport.”
One strategy to get around Measure F’s two-thirds-majority requirement would be to ask voters in a referendum to modify that to a simple majority. Another strategy would be to seek legislation in Sacramento to limit the activities of anti-airport cities, which have spent millions of dollars on advertising and direct mail to criticize the airport plan and promote alternatives.
But the best hope is that Otero will overturn Measure F, or at least portions of it.
Just who is this judge whose decision so many Orange County residents are awaiting? The judge was unavailable for comment last week because he was on vacation, according to a spokesman for the LA County Superior Court.
High Praise
Both sides have studied Otero’s background. While they may not like his decision after Sept. 11, at least right now they are praising him.
Board Supervisor Cynthia Coad, who is in favor of the airport, also sits on a statewide committee of bar examiners.
“We’ve talked to a number of lawyers about him,” she said. “He is a very thorough and upright person who studies the cases very in-depth. I have nothing but high praise for him.”
“Everyone thought he was a good choice,” said Waters. “He came from the LA County government and we thought a judge who comes from the government side would understand the situation that has prompted us to do what we did.”
Otero’s background suggests that he knows a lot about transportation and big public projects. During the early 1980s, he was a lawyer in the liability section of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Later in the decade, he was the agency’s lead counsel in both state and federal courts involving all aspects of public utility and rate regulations.
During the 1980s, he was the general attorney for Southern Pacific Transportation Co., and then the VP and general counsel for the Los Angeles Union Terminal Inc.
His biography lists memberships in, among other organizations, the California Judges Association, the Mexican-American Bar Association, the National Association of Railroad Trial Counsel, and the Federal Energy Bar Association. His biography doesn’t list any professional awards.
Born in Los Angeles in 1951, he grew up in Burbank and graduated magna cum laude from California State University, Northridge. He then graduated in 1975 from the Stanford University Law School. Besides boxing and the theater, he enjoys jogging and skiing.
In 1990, Gov. George Deukmejian appointed him to the court, and Otero won elections to retain his seat in 1992 and 1998. He’s seldom mentioned in the press. Among his more prominent cases are: a 1994 private settlement between a family and Forest Lawn Memorial Park, which admitted losing the ashes of the family’s 77-year-old patriarch; and the lawsuit of a Jewish family that settled the first individual suit filed against a European insurer for failure to pay a claim based on a policy issued during the Holocaust era.
For the past nine years, Otero has been an elected member of the Superior Court’s 21-member Executive Committee, which oversees the 420-judge court’s $500 million budget.
Otero was assigned to the Measure F case after another Superior Court judge, Dzintra Janavs, recused herself at the request of Measure F backers. Janavs had said in previous hearings that Measure F has constitutional problems.
Otero showed he wasn’t following Orange County politics when in his first hearing, in late March, he inquired about Measure F, “What is that?”
But five weeks later, the judge sent a signal that he thought a section of Measure F that limited county expenditures was unconstitutional. He issued the temporary stay allowing the county to spend on existing contracts for planning the airport.
“The issue was not a close call,” he said in a May 4 hearing.
“The measure is so seemingly vague (that) it is impossible for the Board (of Supervisors) to interpret the measure with any certainty,” said Otero.
Worrisome Factors
He said that the measure’s attempt to limit how the county can spend funds would in effect make Richard Jacobs, the lead attorney against the airport, “the mayor of the county of Orange.”
Otero does have a sense of humor. When an anti-airport lawyer tried to argue that the judge didn’t have the authority to issue a stay longer than 15 days, Otero remarked, “Why don’t you take a seat? We’re going to be here for a while.”
The judge is aware of the intense media scrutiny of the airport battle and is concerned about how his rulings are portrayed in the press. In the May 4 hearing, he said, “If we have any press members out there, I want to make it clear that the court’s ruling today is not going to have the effect of allowing the county of Orange to start construction on any civilian airport in the El Toro Marine Reserve Base.”
But despite his comments, the judge’s style doesn’t bode well for anti-airport forces. Unlike some judges who issue rulings that establish new law, Otero is the type who closely follows existing law.
“He’s a judge who is not interested in policy arguments but what the law says,” said Jacobs.
Jacobs acknowledged that the two-thirds-majority requirement in Measure F has little precedent in existing law. But he still thinks Otero will let the measure stand.
“Courts are expected to lean over backwards to uphold initiatives,” he said. “There isn’t anything to say two-thirds voting is unconstitutional.”
At the Sept. 11 hearing, the judge is expected to hear oral arguments on two debates. One is whether to make permanent his stay allowing the county to continue spending funds on existing contracts for El Toro airport planning. But the larger debate is whether Measure F should stand or be thrown out.
The lawyers said Otero’s style has been to limit oral arguments and rely mostly on the briefs. Thus, his decision could be handed down on the same day as the oral arguments.
“The pro-airport side thinks he going to rule to overturn Measure F and we think he won’t,” said Waters. “Someone will be in appellate court the next day.”
And the other side will be celebrating. n
