> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Jury: Club 66 owner owes $1 - URL: https://www.smdp.com/jury-club-66-owner-owes-1/ - Published: 2005-09-30T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T07:50:13.000Z - Author: Carolyn Sackariason - Tags: Crime, Downtown, #archive-import *City Hall attorney seeking $1M in fees* DOWNTOWN LA — Another chapter in the 10-year battle between a local businessman and City Hall came to a close this week when a jury found that city officials weren’t liable for violating a lease on a restaurant at the Santa Monica Pier. Following nearly four weeks of testimony, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury returned its verdict on Monday in the long-running dispute between City Hall and Russell Barnard. The jury sided with City Hall, finding that it did-n’t breach its lease with Barnard. To the contrary, the jury also found that Barnard had breached the lease himself by, among other means, failing to meet the deadlines for performance and failing to construct the premises. In his lawsuit filed in 2002, Barnard claimed that City Hall breached its contractual duty of good faith by preventing him from constructing “Club Route 66,” a nearly 20,000-square-foot space planned to be built at 370 Santa Monica Pier, which has been vacant since the late 1970s when Sinbad’s Restaurant closed its doors. The jury denied Barnard more than $1 million in damages he claimed at trial. The jury awarded City Hall $1 in damages it claimed in a cross complaint that alleged nearly $600,000 in lost rent. “This is an outright victory for the city,” said attorney Gary J. Goodstein, who represents City Hall. “We never expected a big verdict in our favor. Our goal all along was to protect the city from Barnard’s claims, which were factually specious and sought millions of dollars in speculative damages. “The jury awarding the city $1 was symbolic,” he added. “It was really just the icing on the cake.” Barnard’s attorney, Alex Cornelius, said the verdict was nothing more than a compromise among jury members who couldn’t agree. Barnard will appeal the verdict and still plans to open the pier restaurant — he has $6 million to develop it and the backing of local investors, Cornelius said, who added that the 9-3 jury verdict doesn’t necessarily mean a victory for City Hall. “Russ always wanted to build an upscale restaurant there and still does,” Cornelius said. “He has a lot of faith in the pier and has always had a vision for that space.” Barnard planned a restaurant/bar/entertainment facility/retail outlet with a “Route 66” theme. Barnard, who also owns Rusty’s Surf Ranch, a separate restaurant and bar on the pier, was selected by City Hall in 1988 from a pool of applicants that sought to develop the popular piece of property. He signed a lease with City Hall in 1993. Once he signed the lease, Barnard said it took him several years to obtain the proper permits for the new venue because city officials kept changing the parameters of the restaurant’s front footage. In 1998, City Hall issued Barnard building permits. He moved forward with the business arrangements, hired staff members and obtained a liquor license for the property. Barnard said he received an extension in February of 2000 on the building permits so that he could complete the extensive project. But by 2001, Barnard said city officials had revoked those permits and stopped returning his calls and e-mails. That’s when he turned to the courts. He originally sought nearly $23 million in lost profits spread out between himself and his investors, based on a 10-year lease with 30 more years in options to renew. His suit also included attorneys fees, and other punitive and exemplary damages. But that amount was reduced to just more than $1 million after an expert witness, who is an economic forecaster, was barred from testifying on Barnard’s behalf the day before the trial, which began Aug. 22, Goodstein said. The judge held hearings outside of the courtroom to determine the expert witness’ credibility. The judge ruled that the data the expert witness was going to use to project Barnard’s $23 million loss was insignificant — it mostly relied on a 2003 National Restaurant Survey, and didn’t take into account the Santa Monica economy. “It is really significant that he was excluded (from the trial),” Goodstein said. “$23 million was just a jump-start to negotiations. (Barnard) set the ceiling so high that he figured they were going to pay him something just to get rid of him.” Cornelius said $23 million in damages was never presented to the jury and Barnard is still out $1 million in out-of-pocket costs for trying to develop the property, as well as argue his legal case. “The lost profits component was really to get a settlement with the city,” he said. “We needed to get a liability verdict for specific performance.” City Hall’s cross complaint accused Barnard of moving too slowly on the project and denied any responsibility in the lawsuit. City attorneys have said that Barnard enlarged the scope of the project several times and failed to file the proper paper-work with City Hall that would allow him to begin construction. After hearing the testimony of 15 witnesses, many of whom were city employees, and reviewing the nearly 250 documents admitted into evidence, the majority of jurors concluded that City Hall’s version of the facts was more credible. “The trial was reduced to a credibility contest,” Goodstein said. “(The jury) just didn’t believe him.” Cornelius said City Hall will have a difficult time in the appeal process because a $1 verdict proves that the jury couldn’t agree. The jury deliberated for three days after the trial finished on Sept. 19. “The city has high hurdles because when you’re awarded $1, it’s a compromise verdict,” he said. Meanwhile, Goodstein plans to file a motion to recover attorney fees for City Hall, which amount to nearly $1 million. Goodstein estimates that his bill to City Hall accounts for about $750,000 and the rest are in-house city attorney costs. As for the fate of the restaurant on the pier, it appears the space will remain empty for at least as long as it takes to resolve the case in the court of appeals, because if Barnard prevails, he plans to move forward. “If (City Hall) tries to do something it’s at their risk,” Cornelius said. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/55/9f/559f9abc-8372-4a2e-8c2d-27386da4e363/content/images/2026/10/093005-02_01.jpg) (Photo: Fabian Lewkowicz/Daily Press) *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 30, 2005.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/093005.pdf?ref=smdp.com)