Tag Archives: Motion to Strike

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Plaintiffs: Not Only Is Our Expert Philip King Really Really Expert With Respect To Calculating The Economic Cost Of Lunada Bay Boys Psychopathic Surf Localism, But Defendants’ Motions Challenging Expertise Are Unmitigated Fraudulent Bullshit

Leave a comment
Philip King of San Francisco State, not just an expert on recreational economics. but a really exceedingly extraordinarily expert expert!
For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit.

Oh boy! No doubt you recall that in January, the plaintiffs filed a declaration of Philip King in which King, a professor of economics at San Francisco State who studies coastal recreational economics. King made a preliminary calculation of the economic damage caused by the aggressively psychopathic surf localism of the Lunada Bay Boys at around $50,000,000 since 1970.

Well, a couple weeks ago some of the defendants, namely the City of Palos Verdes Estates and their fine upstanding police chief Jeff Kepley came back on the plaintiffs with a bunch of pleadings claiming that Philip King didn’t have the first idea what he was talking about and asking the court therefore to toss out his declaration and stuff. Tonight the plaintiffs responded with three new items arguing against this and also accusing the defendants of practicing some kind of technical subterfuge on the court by filing a motion to strike and engaging in bad-faith meet-and-confers prior to filing the motion. Links and summaries after the break.
Continue reading Plaintiffs: Not Only Is Our Expert Philip King Really Really Expert With Respect To Calculating The Economic Cost Of Lunada Bay Boys Psychopathic Surf Localism, But Defendants’ Motions Challenging Expertise Are Unmitigated Fraudulent Bullshit →

Share
Lawsuits

The Suit Goes On: Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell Files (Moderately Sarcastic) Order Denying City Of LA’s Motion To Dismiss Street Vending Lawsuit

Leave a comment
Federal Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell, in whose court the NLG's street vending case is being heard.
Federal Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell, in whose court the NLG’s street vending case is being heard.
This is just a quick note to memorialize the fact that, after the City of Los Angeles filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against it and the Fashion District BID brought by a number of downtown street vendors, tonight Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell filed a 16 page order denying everything, which of course means that the case will go on.1 The standard for denying a motion to dismiss is essentially that the plaintiff “…pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” The Judge found that they had, so the case will go on. Recall also that there was a hearing on the City’s motion scheduled for Monday, November 21. O’Connell canceled this hearing because “the Court deems this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument of counsel.” That’s gotta hurt.

Briefly, one of the arguments raised by the City of LA is that the vendors’ organization, the Unión Popular de Vendedores Ambulantes, lacks standing to sue.2 More on this and some quotated snark after the break.
Continue reading The Suit Goes On: Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell Files (Moderately Sarcastic) Order Denying City Of LA’s Motion To Dismiss Street Vending Lawsuit →

Share
Lawsuits

Defendant City of Los Angeles Files Motion To Dismiss Street Vending Lawsuit, Motion To Strike Putatively Irrelevant Material, Gratuitously Compares Street Vendors To Human Traffickers And Drug Dealers; Hearing Scheduled For November 21 At 1:30 P.M.

Leave a comment
An image from a recent journey to the Fashion District, unrelated to anything discussed in this post or, for that matter, on this blog.
An image from a recent journey to the Fashion District, unrelated to anything discussed in this post or, for that matter, on this blog.
Recall that last week we learned that settlement talks in the Street Vendors lawsuit seemed to have fallen through, that the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and that the City of LA denies everything.1 Well, today a couple more items2 hit PACER, which are:

The motion to dismiss isn’t that different from the motion to dismiss that the City filed in May but then withdrew a few days later. It doesn’t seem plausible,3 and you can read it for yourself. The motion to strike is more interesting, and you can read about it after the break.
Continue reading Defendant City of Los Angeles Files Motion To Dismiss Street Vending Lawsuit, Motion To Strike Putatively Irrelevant Material, Gratuitously Compares Street Vendors To Human Traffickers And Drug Dealers; Hearing Scheduled For November 21 At 1:30 P.M. →

Share