$1.2 Million Payment Looms for District Judge
Judge Mark Somers
In case you missed it, the jury verdict against 19th District Chief Judge Mark Somers was upheld by a U.S. District judge, which means the Dearborn judge is now looking at a total bill of roughly $1.2 million when interest and attorney fees are factored in to the original award.
Judge Somers had filed a motion to set aside the $732,361 jury verdict against him but U.S. District Judge David Lawson denied the appeal last week. This long-running case pitted 19th District Deputy Court Administrator Julie Pucci against Somers, her former boss.
Somers told the Dearborn Press & Guide that while he is “disappointed” with the recent outcome, he isn’t ready to concede defeat.
“I am understandably disappointed in the outcome of the motions,” Somers told the Press & Guide. “I believe that they were meritorious and I have already requested that the Attorney General’s Office initiate the appeals process.”
The state Attorney General’s Office, per Michigan law, provides legal defense for judges who are sued for something they do as part of their job.
It isn’t clear who will ultimately write the check for the roughly $1.2 million for this case.
Somers says Dearborn will be responsible. City attorneys have said the city is not responsible for the payment.
U.S. District Judge Lawson said the matter of who will end up paying will likely have to be settled in court.
“The more likely scenario is that Dearborn’s obligation to pay the judgment will have to be litigated,” Lawson wrote. “In the meantime, the judgment will remain against the defendant in his individual capacity, and he has not demonstrated that his ‘ability to pay the judgment is so plain that the cost of the bond would be a waste of money.’”
And to think this case could have been settled for less than $40,000, roughly the amount of Julie Pucci’s salary.
December 23rd, 2011 at 6:36 am
Could have settled for far less? Cases with that admonition after the fact are legion in court cases in the modern world we’re in. It’s called pay to go away. My guess is the Judge tried to change some long accepted practices and got smacked down. People losing their jobs is a little much, I would agree. The city is not responsible? Well we are all going to pay for this spacious legal argument. And lawyers will make the most money. One tiny piece of evidence of the dysfunction within our government.
December 23rd, 2011 at 8:33 am
It’s clear enough – DEARBORN TAX PAYERS!!!!!!!!! $$$$$$$$$ AGAIN!!!!!!! 1.2 Million.
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:04 pm
So six months since the jury verdict and the tab is now up almost $500,000? What attempts were made to settle in the meantime? Clearly none. Total recklessness from City Hall.
The Mayor and Walling are foolishla and arrogantly managing the taxpayer’s money. They make us look like fools.
Everyone needs to wake up and smell the cheesburgers. Take a look at the deferred CSO assessment which doubled winter taxes. Mayor and Walling and City Co. moved that to the winter bill in order to get their millages passed. Now there’s a double whammy, and no election in sight.
Now we’ll get the Sommers tax along with the Summer tax bill. How poetic. I mean pathetic.
BTW the mayor and Somers are still good buddies. Somer’s wife was one of his singing “chipmunks” in a 2011 Christmas show.
Alviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin. We’re all being taken for fools.
December 23rd, 2011 at 2:36 pm
I think all our tax increase did is insure the city workers pensions, wages and health insurance. It doesn’t look like it’s going to do anything to improve the quality of this city. They are already crying that there isn’t enough money for the libraries when they got a whole separate millage just for the library. Enough already!
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Give the young lady what she has coming, and get rid of this creep Somers. All he does is makes us all look bad, when he continually acts like the moron that he is in actuality. Wait and see who pays the bill, then we will see if he goes door to door trying to get our votes. The sad thing is the young lady who won her lawsuit against him, went door to door for him when he first won his position, but then again we see how loyal Mighty Mouse Somers is afterall.
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Marty get with it, guys like Somer are the reason for dysfunction within our government. If you treat people the way you want to be treated, you normally can’t go wrong, but when you act like your better than them, you come crumbling down, like Pee Wee Somers will see happen to him. The lawyers will be jumping for joy, and the residents will be left holding the bill, because of this idiot. Marty don’t insult yourself by being used by Somers, as the people can see right thru you.
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Somers has shown what a pathetic little weasel he is, and he is going to run for cover, because he is going to lose any appeals he is going to attempt in the future, and illustrate to one and all, what a little selfish, little loser he actually is. I hope the people won’t forget at the next election.
December 23rd, 2011 at 5:19 pm
I don’t understand. Somers let her go to save the City money, save the tax payers money. Normally, we would applaud him but because it was someone’s mistress we now owe her millions?
December 23rd, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Naw, tell the truth Junior, he didn’t let her go to save money, he hired some goon instead at a higher pay rate, with full benefits. A Federal Court Jury found Mark fired her in retaliation for reporting him to the State Court Admin. Office for the inappropriate use of court correspondence i.e. biblical quotes on his official letterhead. Punitive damages aren’t awarded for administrative actions. He apparently never bothered to read the Constitution. Maybe after the next election he’ll have more time.
Don’t forget verdict number one for over $600,000 with attorney fees. Attorney General defense costs are sky high, and cost paid by the city are in the thousands.
This is the same creep who ran against an incumbent he claimed unworthy of the job based on the expenditure of less than forty grand in attorney fees. Now Sommers’ total is more than TWO MILLION TAXPAYER BUCKs.
Howz that for savin’ money? Don’t insult the voters, just put it on their tab.
Sounds like lack of veracity is genetic. So is lack of intergrity.
December 23rd, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Angelo I personally feel you are correct, this has gone on too long, give it up Somers & O’Reilly your costing us a large amount of money. This money could be better spent on the kids in Dearborn, i.e. swimming pools instead of constantly appealing the Pucci case forever — do all the residents a favor, and give it up, you guys were wrong and now you must pay for your mistakes.
December 23rd, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Yeah the guy who stole my car was just tryin to save money too. Great argument thatSommers illegal activity is justified by cost savings. The couple bucks he might have saved is now costing us a thousand percent more. Do the math.
December 24th, 2011 at 3:49 am
Thanks, Saab. I had a boss one time who was very anti firing people. I mean never. As a young man I couldn’t figure why. I knew one of the people involved here. I think that person was treated unfairly. Thus my comment: “People losing their jobs is a little much, I would agree.” I’ve known more than one involved person actually. I am just trying to dryly observe this debacle. Judge Sommers got in based in part on a venomous anger at his predecessor. You and I both know the finger pointing about who pays the bill really benefits the arguing lawyers. Ultimately at taxpayers expense.
December 24th, 2011 at 5:48 am
Judge Somers did what he had to in order to maintain the integrity of our court. Employers as individuals and their corporations (in this case the City of Dearborn) are routinely subject to frivolous lawsuits by those looking to pass the blame for their own poor decisions on to another. This is a terrible situation brought on by a man that chose to stand by his beliefs rather than let corruption prevail. The fact that the appeal was shot down may perhaps be another layer of corruption within the judicial system. Judge Somers has the greatest, and most noteworthy reputation in this city for locking up criminals that deserve to go away, and granting leniency to those who warrant it. If we lose Somers as a Judge, the city will suffer, even more so then at the hand of a frivolous lawsuit which benefited the wrong side.
December 24th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Judge Somers got what he deserved and hopefully the three women that he retaliated against will eventually be rewarded. The man was being paid to adjudicate from a bench not proselytize from a pulpit. When called on this behavior, he retaliated with the dismissal of the three experienced and dedicated employees. He has been found guilty and should now save the taxpayers additional insult on top of the injury he has already caused.
December 24th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Thom: The judge is supposed to follow the law nothis opinion or religious beliefs. Judge Summers has a reputation for preaching from the bench which is a no/no. Diogenese
December 24th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Well maybe he should lock up himself up for grand theft because what he’s done to the voters who elected him is a crime.
The only layer of corruption is between Sommers ears. Two juries, a county court judge and a federal court judge can’t all be wrong.
December 26th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Sure it’s easy to not concede defeat with someone else’s money. Stop the bleeding already until this entire City bleeds to death. We are already anemic! What is he “disappointed” about? The fact that 16 jurors and two separate judges found him guilty of violating employees constitutional rights or that fact that his pay will soon be garnished? Maybe he should sell his mercedes before it’s too late. Bet the UAW loves seeing that after they endorsed him. He is the biggest PHONY in Dearborn. Wonder if Jack O’Reilly will have another Somers lawn sign in front of his house?? Dearborn government at its best!
December 26th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Bravo! Bravo!
+1
December 26th, 2011 at 11:06 am
How do you think the Mayor and Council will justify this in the end? Thank goodness they have Deb Walling! The same “lawyer” who publicly said they have had not part in the case actively or passively. Is she kidding or just have amnesia??? Has anyone gone on-line and read the Motion for Sanctions against the City? They had an opportunity to settle this case and rejected it at a closed session The City of Dearborn legal department participated over the phone for hours in the facilitation process. The City was fined $7,400 for not acting in good faith. Now they say “we have no control over the lawsuits.” Shame on everyone involved in this debacle. Maybe the Blue Ribbon Committee will give the Mayor and Council better legal advice.
Put it on the tax rolls right next to the CSO mileage! Is it Combined Sewer Overflow or Cut Somers Off???? Either way, both STINK!!
December 26th, 2011 at 11:54 am
The truth will ALWAYS be told! Somers, stop hiding from it.. It is chasing you!
December 26th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Well said Tim!
December 26th, 2011 at 11:55 am
HA HA! Bravo Socrates! Love it!
December 26th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Maybe Somers should volunteer to work for FREE if he is really concerned about saving Dearborn money… It would be a start at least!
December 26th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
SamHam is absolutely right – this could and should have been settled years ago. He’s right too about the earlier Order for Sanctions for the City’s failure to participate in good faith settlement discussions.
The City’s defense – kick the can down the road by denying financial responsibility – has proven extremely costly. Judge Somers can’t afford the bond, and will eventually settle by abandoning his appeal and assigning his right to sue the City for the judgment money to the plaintiffs. The City will lose that one too, and yes – onto the tax rolls it goes. And here comes another jury in case number 3 . . .
December 26th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Hey Thom – – look up the word frivolous in the dictionary. It says without merit. You need to pick another word! Locking up criminals?? Does that include Terry Jones? Get our pocketbooks out for that one too.
BTW, which lawsuit are you talking about? The first, second or third one? Or is it the pending EEOC complaint? Details, details.
December 26th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
I was just picked for jury duty in Summers courtroom and sat there for three hours just so he could come in and tell us it was settled. He then wanted to take us on a tour. A tour of what?? A big waste of time and taxpayers money. A jury trial in District Court – – pleeeez! Why does he stick his tie into his shirt??
December 27th, 2011 at 8:48 am
Sticks his tie in his shirt and his hand in taxpayer’s pockets.
December 27th, 2011 at 9:34 am
To ‘Wanting Better’ : Ms. Pucci was not ‘someone’s mistress’. She and Judge Hultgren live together and have for a long time. For whatever reasons, they chose not to get married, but live as if they were. Many people choose that same path. It was not against the rules for married people to work in the same court until about the time that Judge Somers was elected. If Ms. Pucci and Judge Hultgren had been married, they would have been covered under a ‘grandfather clause’ that would have allowed them to continue as they were. Judge Somers took offense at their living arrangement on religious grounds – he made open comments on the point – and then he took the steps that led to this lawsuit. I only know the Judge from serving on a jury in his courtroom years ago, and I do not know Ms. Pucci at all. I take offense, though, at your attempt to smear Ms. Pucci with your choice of words and had to set the record straight.
December 27th, 2011 at 9:38 am
“The jury returned a verdict on June 30, 2011 finding that when the defendant fired the plaintiff from her job as deputy court administrator at the Nineteenth District
Court in Dearborn, Michigan, he violated the plaintiff’s right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and he retaliated against her in violation of the First Amendment. The jury assessed compensatory damages in the amount of $434,361 for economic loss and $100,000 for noneconomic loss. The jury also assessed punitive damages of $100,000 for the violation of the
plaintiff’s right to due process of law, and $100,000 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DAVID LAWSON DECEMBER 16, 2011
When the “beliefs” a man stands by include repeatedly violating the civil rights of those he is privileged to employ, then he should not be wearing a black robe.
Before you blindly continue in your well meaning, but misguided opinion of Sommers, spend some time reading Judge Lawson’s 26 page opinion. You will find it educational. Pick a better and more deserving cause and don’t feel bad, he puts on a good show. Comes from his missionary training. Too bad the teachings never touched his dark soul.
December 27th, 2011 at 9:43 am
I am frustrated, too, ‘Fedup’, at always seeming to play ‘catch-up’. However, it is NOT a surprise that the library millage is not enough to fund the libraries fully. That was disclosed before the election. The City was allowed by State law to put a separate library millage on the ballot, but was restricted on how large the millage could be. That fact was made public ahead of time. The millage increase is restoring only SOME of the revenue that has been lost to the drop in housing values. We are paying more taxes than we would without the rate increase, but still LESS taxes than we were just a couple of years ago.
Also, of course our taxes pay for pensions, wages and health care for the City workers. Our taxes have always paid for those things. Our taxes also pay for trash and garbage pickup, which is privatized. Those are not City workers picking up our trash, but our money still pays them. I don’t see the problem.
December 29th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Fatburger Coming Soon!!!!
December 29th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
He sure saved the taxpayers money, by getting rid of Ms.Pucci, now he has the residents on the hook for over a million dollars. Is that your idea of saving money Einstein? As for her being someones mistress, you shouldn’t be assuming this (even if u are one of Somers relatives or friends), because it makes u look like the idiot, you are portraying yourself as, because it is apparent thats not the relationship they have because if u have seen them, u would see its a lot more than that, and they illustrate something u may be yearning for and are simply envious. As far as “wanting better for Dearborn”, why not do all of us a favor, and simply leave Dearborn.