Judge rules in favor of Gallegly, against CLU
Editor’s note: This story was updated on Sept. 19.
A judge ruled Sept. 17 that there is a contractual basis for the establishment of a replica of former Congressman Elton Gallegly’s office on the California Lutheran University campus in Thousand Oaks.
“The court has been asked to determine if there is a contractual basis for the establishment of Mr. Gallegly’s congressional office,” Ventura County Superior Court Judge Henry Walsh wrote in his ruling. “The answer to that is in the affirmative.”
“Elton Gallegly is the prevailing party and is entitled to his statutory costs of suit,” the judge added. “Counsel for Gallegly is directed to prepare and to submit a form of judgment.”
The ruling comes in a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed against the university by Gallegly.
Gallegly, a Simi Valley Republican who served in Congress from 1987 through 2013, filed the suit against the university, then-President Lori Varlotta and former President Chris Kimball in Nov. 2021. Gallegly’s wife Janice is also a plaintiff.
The university denies the breach-of-contract allegations
The suit alleges that Cal Lutheran failed to fully establish the Elton and Janice Gallegly Center for Public Service and Civic Engagement on the university’s campus. Cal Lutheran in early 2022 removed a replica of Gallegly’s Washington, D.C. office, which had been the centerpiece of the center located in the school’s Pearson Library.
“The court has no power to compel the parties to bury the hatchet, which is necessary before this project can be resurrected,” the judge wrote.
He said that there is yet “no persuasive evidence that either side has abandoned their obligation to raise money to support this project.
“That is more likely an area of inquiry for the other causes of action, e.g., accounting and/or breach of contract,” Walsh said.
The Galleglys and Cal Lutheran issued a joint statement Sept. 18 saying they “are aware of Judge Walsh’s Statement of Intended Decision for Phase One of their trial and they have agreed to make no further comment regarding the decision or the trial at this time.”
