Westminster council discusses ongoing lawsuit against two members; closed session yields no reportable action

The Westminster City Council met Aug. 13 and heard multiple public comments urging the city to let the courts decide an ongoing lawsuit alleging repeated disruptions by two council members. The council met in closed session to discuss existing litigation and recused the two members named in the suit from one specific closed-session discussion; the city attorney later reported there was no reportable action from that discussion.

The issue drew several speakers during oral communications for closed session. ‘‘Let the court decide,’’ said Gigi Vo, a Westminster resident who spoke during public comments, asking the council not to dismiss the case and to let the legal process run its course. Dao Tran, another resident, said one council member has accepted wrongdoing while the other had not, and urged appropriate accountability.

Why it matters: The dispute has repeatedly come up at council meetings and in public comments. The case has also generated questions about council decorum, legal costs and the city’s role in pursuing claims against elected officials. City staff told the council they had discussed the pending litigation in closed session under Government Code Section 54956.9 and that the two council members named in the litigation would be recused from that particular item.

Details: The city clerk read the closed-session items into the record, citing ‘‘conference with legal counsel—existing litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1), case City of Westminster v. Amy Fan West et al., Orange County Superior Court case 30-2024-01443472-CU-MC-CJC.’’ City staff later said the closed-session discussion produced no reportable action. The city attorney asked staff to be prepared to discuss only the legal matter and noted the recused members would not participate in that particular discussion but could participate in other closed-session items.

What residents said: Multiple speakers during closed-session oral communications asked that the city allow the courts to proceed and not drop the case. Teng Dang, speaking as a translator for another commenter, said the county’s attempt to reclaim a $1 million grant should not be used to excuse other actions, and he urged the council not to dismiss the litigation. Terry Raines, who addressed the council later in the meeting, summarized a recent court ruling and argued the city should let the case go to trial; he noted a trial date set for July 27, 2026, in the county filings he cited.

Next steps: The city attorney reported the council would discuss the remaining closed-session items at a later time and that there was ‘‘no reportable action’’ from the litigation discussion that evening. Members of the public urged transparency about filings and court rulings; the council did not vote on dismissing the litigation at the Aug. 13 meeting.

Ending: For now, the dispute remains in the courts and the subject of public commentary. The council’s closed-session discussion did not produce an announced decision, and members directed staff to continue following the legal process as it proceeds.