The City of South Gate City Council recessed into closed session on multiple pending litigation matters after reading statutory citations for closed‑session authority and listing named cases.

Presiding over a special meeting, the council cited Government Code section 54956.9 and related provisions when announcing the closed session. The clerk identified the cases listed for closed discussion as: Cario Montez de Oca v. City of South Gate et al.; Manuel T. Gonzales v. City of South Gate et al.; Maria Lumos Lamos v. City of South Gate et al.; Daniel Garcia Munoz v. City of South Gate; and Darlene Murillo v. City of South Gate.

Before the council recessed, Mayor Maria Davila offered the public an opportunity to speak on the closed‑session items. The clerk reported one email from resident Mario Dominguez expressing concern about transparency in the city’s handling of lawsuits. According to the clerk’s summary, Dominguez asked the council to direct the city attorney to publicly disclose the amounts the city is being sued for and any settlement figures, noting he had seen such disclosures in other cities.

City Attorney Salinas was reported as ‘‘on his way’’ earlier in the meeting; no public response from the city attorney to Dominguez’s request was recorded in the public transcript. The council then entered closed session; the public record provided here does not include deliberations or outcomes from that closed session.

The closed session was called under statutory exemptions that allow confidential attorney‑client communications and litigation strategy; such sessions commonly occur before potential settlements or when litigation strategy is at issue. Because the council recessed into closed session, no public votes or formal actions on the listed litigation matters were recorded in the available transcript.