Tag Archives: James Otero

Taking It To The Fricking Ninth Circuit: In Petition Filed Today Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs Ask Permission To Appeal Denial Of Class Certification! Judge Otero’s Many Manifest Errors Enumerated!! The Argument In One Sentence: “Absent an appeal, anarchy remains.”

… by making multiple manifest legal errors … the District Court denied Petitioners’ motion for class certification.
A little more than two weeks ago, federal district court judge James Otero denied class certification in the Lunada Bay Boys case, turning it into a merely personal dispute between a bunch of thuggish zillionaire surf-localist gangbangers and the few surfers brave enough to put their names on the case. Today, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking for permission to appeal Otero’s decision immediately, rather than, I guess, waiting until the whole case is done, which is probably the more normal time to appeal. This is a so-called interlocutory appeal, in other words, which is made before the case which gives rise to it is settled. Obviously it would cause chaos if lawyers were allowed to appeal every random decision a lower court judge made while the actual case was proceeding, which is probably why it’s necessary to (a) ask the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal and (b) to argue that the case will suffer “irreparable harm” if the appeal of the given order, in this case denial of class certification, isn’t allowed to proceed while the underlying case is ongoing. The basic argument seems to be this:

Californians have a constitutional right to access their public beaches. Accordingly, Petitioners ask this Court for the opportunity to appeal now, so that their motion for class certification can be given proper consideration under the correct interpretation of rule 23. As this Court has recognized, there is no reason for a plaintiff to litigate to finality “when a certification decision is erroneous and inevitably will be overturned.”

Most of this petition is far too technical for any discourse that I might construct upon it to be profitable for anyone, but the introduction is quite comprehensible and quite stirring. Turn the page to read that. Also, it’s worth reading the summary of the many points where Otero seemingly ignored the expertise of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, but I’m not reproducing that for technical reasons. You can find it, along with the nitty gritty technical nerdview, by reading the petition your own self, friend!
Continue reading Taking It To The Fricking Ninth Circuit: In Petition Filed Today Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs Ask Permission To Appeal Denial Of Class Certification! Judge Otero’s Many Manifest Errors Enumerated!! The Argument In One Sentence: “Absent an appeal, anarchy remains.”

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Lawsuit Will Not Be A Class Action! Judge Otero Files Order Denying Motion For Class Certification. But, Says Otero, The Experts Are Mostly But Not Totally Expert Enough!

Pretty, pretty Palos Verdes…but no class at all!
For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Perhaps you recall that yesterday’s scheduled hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion to have their lawsuit against the putative Lunada Bay Boys certified as a class action was cancelled by the Judge on the grounds that he would be able to rule without hearing oral arguments. Well, this morning his order denying class certification hit PACER. I can tell you right now that his reasoning with respect to the conclusion that this case cannot proceed as a class action is completely beyond my ability to interpret sensibly, so you’ll have to figure that part of it out yourself.

The introduction to the order strikes me as pretty skeptical of the plaintiffs’ claims generally, and even a little sarcastic. For instance, in what must be for the plaintiffs a particularly disconcerting example of judicial humor, Otero begins his summary of the facts with the following pun: “Riding the wave of the Point Break remake, Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action lawsuit…” It can’t be pleasant to read insinuations from the judge that one’s lawsuit was essentially a movie tie-in! There are excerpts after the break.

Otero also responded to ongoing debate over plaintiffs’ expert witnesses by saying that the economist Philip King is certainly expert enough, but that his method of arriving at an estimate of $50,000,000 in damages is nonsense.1 It seems to be that King will be allowed to testify but not testify to damages. Also, Otero says that the plaintiffs’ other expert, Peter Neushul,2 is certainly expert enough to testify about surfing in Southern California. Anyway, after the break, find some excerpts from the less technical parts of the order.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Lawsuit Will Not Be A Class Action! Judge Otero Files Order Denying Motion For Class Certification. But, Says Otero, The Experts Are Mostly But Not Totally Expert Enough!

Share

Almost 200 Emails Between the City Of LA And the East Hollywood BID. Also, Lunada Bay Boys Hearing Tomorrow And Also Ethics Commission Meeting!

Dwarf bottlebrush plant from some plans that the East Hollywood BID exchanged with a bunch of lackeys at the City of LA in preparation for planting them along Vermont Avenue, most likely to thwart the homeless in some manner.
Tonight I had the pleasure of receiving from self-proclaimed active member of the revitalized Hollywood community1 Jeffrey Charles Briggs almost 200 emails between the East Hollywood Business Improvement District and various far-too-friendly folks at the City of Los Angeles. For now these are available here on Archive.Org. They’re PDFs, but they’re that super-PDF-format that one can make with genuine Adobe software that embeds attachments right in there with clickable links.2 I have only been able to give these a cursory look-over, but I can already see a few crucial items. I’ll be writing on these matters as soon as I possibly can, but if you want a preview of one of them take a look at this juicy little number.

And tomorrow is a huge day at the Civic Center. In the morning there is a hearing in the Lunada Bay Boys case, featuring Palos Verdes Peninsula zillionaire surf-localism-thuggery at its most flamboyantly weird. In the afternoon there is an essential meeting of the Ethics Commission. Turn the page for times, locations, and brief descriptions. Perhaps I’ll see you there!
Continue reading Almost 200 Emails Between the City Of LA And the East Hollywood BID. Also, Lunada Bay Boys Hearing Tomorrow And Also Ethics Commission Meeting!

Share

Plaintiffs: Your Honor, We Respectfully Request That You Pay No Mind To Brant Blakeman’s Request For Judicial Notice Because It Is Late, It Is Irrelevant, It Is Not On Point, It Constitutes Unprofessional Subterfuge, And It Is Stinking Amateurish Bullshit Of The First Water

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit.

Oh dear, friends, more drama swirls around the Lunada Bay Boys case.1 You may recall that, the other day, defendant Brant Blakeman asked the Judge to take judicial notice of the fact that proposed class representative Diana Reed had a default judgement against her in L.A. County Superior Court for a bunch of torts including one or more flavors of fraud and that that fact made her somehow unsuitable to represent the class of plaintiffs in this case. Tonight the plaintiffs’ response hit PACER, facetiously but accurately summarized in the headline, along with some other stuff, and I have copies for you along with descriptions, find it all after the break.
Continue reading Plaintiffs: Your Honor, We Respectfully Request That You Pay No Mind To Brant Blakeman’s Request For Judicial Notice Because It Is Late, It Is Irrelevant, It Is Not On Point, It Constitutes Unprofessional Subterfuge, And It Is Stinking Amateurish Bullshit Of The First Water

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Brant Blakeman Raises Questions About Proposed Class Representative Diana Reed’s “credibility and interest in litigating the case” On Basis Of Default Judgment Against Her For Fraud Involving, Inter Alia, Aerosmith Concert in Mexico City

If you want to know what Aerosmith has to do with anything you have to read the blog post!
Oh dear. Hitting PACER just now is Defendant Brant Blakeman’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. It seems that plaintiff Diana Reed was sued in LA County Superior Court for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and a few other such torts, arising out of a music promotion business run by Reed and her husband Gabe. Blakeman is arguing that these allegations, along with the fact that Reed didn’t defend the suit, make her unfit to represent the class of people harmed in the Lunada Bay Boys case.

According to the complaint in the fraud suit,1 the Reeds accepted tens of thousands of dollars from the business manager of some band in exchange for the band being allowed to open for an Aerosmith concert in Mexico City and to go on some rock tour that the Reeds were promoting. None of this ever happened, the band didn’t get its money back, they sued, the Reeds didn’t defend the case, and the court entered a default judgment for more than $440,000.

Bay Boys defendant Blakeman is asking the court to take judicial notice of the complaint and the default judgment against Reed as part of his argument that she’s not moral enough to represent the class of people harmed by the actions of the Bay Boys. The reasoning runs like this:2
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Brant Blakeman Raises Questions About Proposed Class Representative Diana Reed’s “credibility and interest in litigating the case” On Basis Of Default Judgment Against Her For Fraud Involving, Inter Alia, Aerosmith Concert in Mexico City

Share

City Of Palos Verdes Estates Tells Federal Court That One Of The Plaintiffs’ Experts Ain’t Expert Enough, Other Documents Filed Including Many Responses To Interrogatories

A really pretty archetypally Californian road in the really pretty archetypally Californian City of Palos Verdes Estates, which is a really pretty archetypally Californian example of the kind of hell on earth that gets created around here when zillionaires are allowed to own entire cities and operate them according to customary zillionaire practices.
This is just a short note to memorialize the fact that a bunch of paperwork was filed in the case of Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys. I have added the new material to the Archive.Org page (look for docket numbers 204 through 207). There are links to and brief descriptions of the new material after the break. Don’t forget to look at the plaintiffs’ responses to the defendants’ interrogatories, which aren’t always available to the public via PACER. In this case they were put on the record as part of a lawyer’s declaration. And also don’t forget that there’s an upcoming hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action, scheduled for Tuesday, February 21 at 10 a.m. in Judge Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Courthouse downtown.
Continue reading City Of Palos Verdes Estates Tells Federal Court That One Of The Plaintiffs’ Experts Ain’t Expert Enough, Other Documents Filed Including Many Responses To Interrogatories

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Tell Federal Court “We Don’t Even Exist So How Can They Sue Us??!” — Defendants’ Oppositions To Motion For Class Certification Filed In Palos Verdes Estates Surf Localism Thuggery Case

Looming reality in the form of the 1st Street Federal Courthouse as seen from the shores of Lunada Bay. Is it getting closer? Is it just an illusion? We will find out on February 21, 2017 at 10 a.m.!
See here for yesterday’s post on this matter and if you need background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on the suit.

Well, just one day after I decided to add Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys to my PACER watchlist, an avalanche of opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to have the thing turned into a class action suit hit the RSS feed. It’s all pretty interesting, and I have uploaded it all to the Archive.Org page that I made yesterday to host all this stuff on. There is a list of new items with links after the break, but the common theme of many of them, as exemplified in the Objection to Plaintiffs’ Evidence in Support of Motion for Class Certification, a 112 page behemoth with which most if not all of the individual defendants seem to have joined in, seems to go something like this:

  1. There is no such thing as the Lunada Bay Boys.
  2. But if there is such a thing as the Lunada Bay Boys, none of the defendants are members of it.
  3. But if some or all of the defendants are members of it, they didn’t do any of the stuff alleged in the complaint.
  4. But if they did do some or all of the stuff alleged in the complaint, they didn’t do it to the plaintiffs.
  5. But if they did do it to the plaintiffs, there wasn’t really any cognizable damage.
  6. But if there was cognizable damage, it’s not really possible to figure out who was damaged.

The City of Palos Verdes Estates (PVE) along with their Chief of Police take a slightly different tack in e.g. their opposition to the motion for class certification. Their theory seems to be that since one plaintiff said something nice about the PVE cops in 2016, they must be innocent all the way back to 1966. Perhaps that even makes sense (?!)

In any case, the hearing on this is scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 2017 in the brand new shiny beautiful 1st Street Courthouse in Courtroom 10C. Perhaps I’ll see you there. As mentioned above, turn the page for a list of links to newly filed items.1
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Tell Federal Court “We Don’t Even Exist So How Can They Sue Us??!” — Defendants’ Oppositions To Motion For Class Certification Filed In Palos Verdes Estates Surf Localism Thuggery Case

Share

Declarations In Federal Lawsuit Over Lunada Bay Surf Localism Reveal Shocking Details Of Decades-Long Reign Of Terror By Multiple Generations Of Zillionaire Palos Verdes Thugs — Exclusive Free eBook Available Now

A rich white Palos Verdes surf gang thug attacks a visitor to the public beach at Lunada Bay.
The story of the violent zillionaire surf-localism gang known as the Lunada Bay Boys and the ongoing federal lawsuit against them is well-explained in this L.A. Times article. Essentially generations of rich white surfer boys in Palos Verdes estates have for decades violently intimidated any outsiders who wanted to visit the public beach at Lunada Bay and they’re finally being called to account in federal court.1 So I finally had time to investigate the matter on PACER, and collected a ton of pleadings and orders on Archive.Org. Note that most of the early documents, including the initial complaint, are presently sealed because one of the defendants, now known as N.F., is a minor but was named in the early pleadings.

Of particular interest are twenty declarations made by various victims of the Lunada Bay Boys over the years, collected by the plaintiffs in support of their motion to certify the suit as a class action, which document endless sordid details of the astonishing violence and idiocy of the Lunada Bay Boys over multiple generations and many decades, as well as the complicity of the police and city government of Palos Verdes Estates. This material is so interesting that I made these twenty documents into a single eBook, with a table of contents and pagination and so on, to make them easier to read on a tablet or whatever. You can download a copy of that here from the Archive. Here are a couple examples of what’s in there, and there are plenty more after the break.

From the Declaration of John Macharg:

I was surfing Lunada Bay the morning of Jan. 29, 2016. The waves were big and my surfboard leash broke. My surfboard drifted to shore by the rocks near the patio. When I reached my board, David Melo walked down the patio stairs and immediately started harassing me by making statements like “You only come around here when the waves are good.” I responded by telling David that he had no right to question how or when I surf the Bay and that localism in general was wrong headed, unfair and illegal. At that point, Sang Lee butted in and began to argue with me. I told Sang that Lunada Bay was public property and did not belong to him. Sang poured out a portion of the beer that he was holding onto my head. I asked Sang if he was trying to start a fight and said “There is a cop right here.” Sang replied “It’s just beer.” There were several officers on the patio deck and one was observing from just a few feet to my right while I argued with Sang and David.

From the Declaration of John Carpenter (31 years on the Riverside PD):

During our walk down to the beach at Lunada Bay
[in 1983 or 1984], we did not encounter many people. However, once we paddled out, we experienced Lunada Bay’s localized culture firsthand. There were about 6 surfers in the water, all of whom were male. Almost immediately after we paddled out, the other surfers started yelling at us, saying “you guys don’t belong here” and “get out of here.” They also called us names and cursed at us. These surfers also aggressively violated surf etiquette – they would drop in on my waves and cut me off. This behavior was dangerous because it required me to pull off a wave, which could have resulted in the waves pummeling me or could have caused me to crash into the nearby shallow rock reef. The experience was frustrating and dangerous because I risked getting injured by a Bay Boy each time I tried to surf a wave.

After about 45 minutes of suffering from the Lunada Bay Boys’ harassment, Sue and I felt too uncomfortable so we decided to leave. When we got back to the car, we discovered that Sue’s car antenna had been mangled and that someone had vandalized the car by smearing surf wax on it. They wrote derogatory words about Sue being a woman. Based on my friends’ experiences and my 45 minutes of trying to surf at Lunada Bay, I was almost positive that the Lunada Bay Boys were responsible for this vandalism.

Due to this negative experience, I have not returned to surf Lunada Bay. When I recently heard that the intimidation and exclusionary behavior at Lunada Bay is still occurring – more than 30 years after I experienced it firsthand – I was shocked. As a law enforcement professional, I know that the conduct taking place at Lunada Bay is no different than criminal gang activity. Like a criminal gang, the Lunada Bay Boys have taken over a public place and use intimidation tactics to scare others to stay off their turf.

In response to this conduct, the City of Palos Verdes Estates’ police should have taken action to address the issues and treat the situation like a gang injunction. For example, they should have set up cameras, conducted surveillance, and prosecuted wrongdoers based on the complaints they received. Instead, the City and the police ignore the complaints or take down reports of aggression but then fail to follow up and investigate and prosecute the wrongdoers.

Continue reading Declarations In Federal Lawsuit Over Lunada Bay Surf Localism Reveal Shocking Details Of Decades-Long Reign Of Terror By Multiple Generations Of Zillionaire Palos Verdes Thugs — Exclusive Free eBook Available Now

Share

Street Vendors Reply To City of LA’s Motions To Strike And To Dismiss, Also Important Records From Department Of Sanitation, Including The City’s Standard Operating Procedure For Cleaning Up Homeless Encampments

The Fashion District, September 2016.
The Fashion District, September 2016.
Good evening, Friends! I haven’t had time to write much recently and I won’t have time for another day or two because the latest installment in the MK.Org LAMC 49.5.5 project is turning out to be more complex than I’d anticipated. I expect to have it done with by the end of this week. This is just a short interim post to announce some new records.

First, you may recall that a couple weeks ago the City of LA filed a couple of motions in the street vending lawsuit. These were:

Tonight the plaintiffs filed their responses to these motions:

And turn the page for some material from the Department of Sanitation relating to homeless encampment cleanups. Most importantly, there is the City-Attorney-approved Standard Operating Procedure manual for cleanups. This is stunning, essential information.
Continue reading Street Vendors Reply To City of LA’s Motions To Strike And To Dismiss, Also Important Records From Department Of Sanitation, Including The City’s Standard Operating Procedure For Cleaning Up Homeless Encampments

Share

Hearing on City of LA’s Motion to Clarify Otero’s Injunction Postponed Again, Now Scheduled for August 15 at 10 am

California-central(See Gale Holland’s excellent story in the Times on Mitchell v. LA as well as our other stories on the subject for the background to this post).

Recall that in April, Judge Otero issued an injunction in relation to the confiscation of the property of homeless people on Skid Row. The City of Los Angeles, meanwhile, professes not to understand the injunction and has filed a motion for clarification of the order. A scheduled hearing on this motion was postponed once and today all parties filed a joint stipulation asking for another postponement and the Judge filed an order granting the request. The hearing is now scheduled for Monday, August 15, at 10 a.m. in Otero’s courtroom downtown.1 The stated reason is that productive mediation in front of Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle is both fruitful and ongoing.

Share