Antitrust law trips up pillar-of-counterculture-journalism Village Voice Media, cont’d: “San Francisco Superior Court Judge Marla Miller raised the amount the Weekly [SF Weekly] must pay in damages to the Bay Guardian — from $6.3 million to $15.9 million — for undercutting its rival with below-cost ads.” (Meredith May, “Judge raises damages in case against SF Weekly”, San Francisco Chronicle, May 21; earlier; sample SF Weekly business-bashing piece, channeling plaintiff’s lawyers’ contentions in Parmalat case). “Predatory pricing — selling ads below cost with the goal of putting your competition out of business — is typically something alt weeklies cover, not something they get caught and fined for.” (Josh Feit, TheStranger.com (which competes with VVM’s Seattle Weekly), Mar. 5).

John Leo has some further thoughts on the lawsuit discussed in this space Jan. 20, in which m-to-f San Franciscan Charlene Hastings is suing the Catholic hospital that (unlike many other hospitals in the Bay Area) declines to perform a breast augmentation on a patient born male (”Orwell Lives”, City Journal, Feb. 4).

• “Woman who ‘lost count after drinking 14 vodkas’ awarded £7,000 over New Year fall from bridge” [The Scotsman]
• Bar committee recommends disbarment for Beverly Hills lawyer who “played the courts like a bully in a child’s game of dodgeball” [Blogonaut (with response by attorney) via ABA Journal]
• Shot and paralyzed in parking lot of South Florida strip club, cared for back home in Tunisia, Sami Barrak is now $26 million richer by way of his negligent-security suit [Sun-Sentinel] Earlier Florida negligent-security here, here, and here.
• Canadian government orders airlines to stop charging the severely obese the price of a second seat [Winnipeg Free Press; earlier]
• Study of head-injury victims in Spain finds “nearly half of the people who go to court feign psycho-cognitive disorders with the objective of profiting from this in some way.” [Science Daily]
• Federal judge vacates $1.75 million verdict, questions reliability of expert testimony in Nebraska recovered-memory sex abuse case [Lincoln Journal-Star, AP/Sioux City Journal]
• Confess your thoughts, citizen: Ezra Levant on his interrogation by official panel in Canada for publishing Mohammed cartoons [Globe & Mail; earlier]
• Class-action lawyers continue to hop on glitches with Xbox Live, Halo 3 and related Microsoft gaming systems [Ars Technica, News.com; earlier here and here]
• Bay Area proposal to ban much burning of wood in fireplaces and stoves (Nov. 30, etc.) draws strong reactions both ways [SF Chronicle]
• Harder to get into Ringling Bros.’s Clown College than law school, says man who attended both [six years ago on Overlawyered]

In order to enhance diversity, it was necessary to suppress it dept.: “She feels as if she’s been treated as if she has no rights,” said the attorney for m-to-f transgender San Francisco resident Charlene Hastings, who’s suing Daughters of Charity/Seton in Daly City alleging harassment and discrimination because it’s not among the many Bay Area hospitals that would be happy to assist in Hastings’s breast augmentation procedure. (Melissa Underwood, “Transgender Woman Sues Catholic Hospital for Refusing Breast Augmentation Surgery”, FoxNews.com, Jan. 18; Barbara Feder Ostrov, “Transgender woman sues Seton hospital”, San Mateo County Times/InsideBayArea.com, Jan. 6). [Title edited after commenter pointed out inaccuracy]

The Dhaliwal brothers prefer to have attorney Mark Geragos do the talking, greatly frustrating investigators trying to reconstruct what happened in the zoo mauling. (Jaxon Van Derbeken, “In ambulance, survivors of S.F. tiger attack made pact of silence”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 5; “San Francisco Authorities Seek to Inspect Tiger Attack Victims’ Cell Phones”, AP/FoxNews.com, Jan. 5; Patricia Yollin, Tanya Schevitz, Kevin Fagan, “S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 3; Jacob Sullum, “The Buck Keeps Moving”, syndicated/Reason, Jan. 2). Earlier: Jan. 3.

“Half Moon Bay is wrestling with unpleasant options for responding to a court ruling that officials say threatens the ‘very existence of our city government’ - a $36.8 million judgment against the city for turning a proposed housing development site into wetlands.” The town’s annual budget is $10 million. The property in question had become unbuildable when protected wetlands appeared on it, as a result, the owner contended, of negligent town policies affecting water flow and retention. The plaintiff had bought the property in 1993 for $1 million. “Under the worst-case scenario, officials say, Half Moon Bay would become the first Bay Area city forced to dissolve, and the coastal town’s land would become an unincorporated part of San Mateo County.” (John Coté, San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 18).

Time running out to roast chestnuts by an open fire: “Under the auspices of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, ‘public hearings’ are being held to determine the fate of the family hearth. Those of us who live in rural areas have a pretty good idea what the outcome is going to be.” (Jeffrey Earl Warren, “Should fireplace fires be banned?”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 22; Jonathan Curiel, “Smog board wants to ban wood fires on bad-air nights in winter”, Nov. 6). This has been building for a while (Dec. 27, 2002; Dec. 24, 2001; Feb. 28, 2001). Related: Denis Cuff, “Air quality agency has beef with charbroiling smoke”, InsideBayArea.com, Nov. 28.

They’re doing it again in California: “State and federal authorities have opened an investigation into a Norco housewife, alleging that her vitriolic protests against a high-risk group home in her neighborhood may constitute housing discrimination.” Federal officials asked state fair housing regulators to investigate Julie Waltz, 61, who had protested plans to open a group house next to her home for developmentally disabled residents; among those eligible to reside there under state law would be persons deemed not competent to stand trial on sex crime charges. In 2000, the Ninth Circuit ruled that three Berkeley, Calif. neighbors’ rights had been violated by an “extraordinarily intrusive and chilling” investigation of whether their protests had been contrary to housing discrimination law. In that episode, as in the latest one, housing advocates had set the investigation in motion by filing complaints against the neighbors.

A spokesman for the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development acknowledged that in order to recommend the inquiry, it had to push aside internal guidelines that prohibit such an investigation because it infringes on the 1st Amendment.

The rules require that complaints of housing discrimination be investigated only in cases in which the alleged victim’s safety has been threatened.

No such allegation has been made against Waltz, but HUD opened an investigation into her and state investigators ordered her to respond to the complaint in detail because a preliminary review showed that someone else in the neighborhood may have made a violent threat, said HUD spokesman Larry Bush.

(Garrett Therolf, “Protester of group home is targeted”, Los Angeles Times, Mar. 20).

A beloved San Francisco tourist attraction, the birds roost in two ancient cypress trees whose owner says he can no longer afford the liability risk should they topple or shed branches on spectators. The city is stepping in to spare the axe by taking responsibility for the chance of injury. (Charlie Goodyear, “Preserving perches for wild parrots”, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 14; “Buzz saws threaten home of Telegraph Hill parrots”, CBC, Nov. 3, 2005). A 2004 film about the parrots is available here on DVD.

“A jury ruled Friday that a labor union defamed Sutter Health with a mass mailing of postcards and awarded the Northern California health care organization almost $17.3 million in damages. The Placer County jury found that Unite Here, one of the nation’s largest unions that represents hotel, restaurant and laundry workers, defamed Sutter Health early last year by sending postcards to women of child-bearing age in Northern California claiming the organization’s hospitals used unclean linens. The union was in a labor dispute with the laundry service that cleaned the linens at the time.” (”Jury: Union defamed Sutter Health”, InsideBayArea.com (Hayward Daily Review), Jul. 23; Mehul Srivastava, “Jury award stings union”, Sacramento Bee, Jul. 22).

Readers may recall the brouhaha last year when a federally protected plant, the Sebastopol meadowfoam, was discovered growing on the grounds of a controversial proposed housing development in the Northern California community; state wildlife officials investigated and said it was apparently planted on purpose. (May 25, 2005). Now the plant has sprung up again on the site, and although opponents of the project have seized on the news, the developer says it’s just a result of the germination of seeds from the earlier illicit plantation. (Terence Chea, “Trouble in bloom at Calif. development site”, AP/Boston Globe, Jul. 17).

Updating our Feb. 22 report: “A judge Friday suspended California’s high school exit exam, finding it discriminatory in a ruling that could allow thousands of students who failed the test to get their diplomas anyway.” Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman “agreed with the plaintiffs that the exam discriminates against poor students and those who are learning English. ‘There is evidence in the record that shows that students in economically challenged communities have not had an equal opportunity to learn the materials tested,’ Freedman wrote.” It would appear that from now on a high school diploma is meant to signify not a student’s actual mastery of a certain body of material, but rather the mastery he or she would have attained had the breaks of life been fairer. Employers, and all others who rely on California high school diplomas in evaluating talent, would be well advised to adjust their expectations accordingly.

“Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell said the state would immediately appeal the ruling, which he said creates ‘chaos’ for more than 1,100 high schools that are completing graduation preparations.” However, plaintiff Mayra Ibanez was gratified:

“It is hard to be poor. It is hard to grow up in a place where there is a lot of crime,” said the 18-year-old, a Mexican immigrant who attends school in the working-class San Francisco Bay area city of Richmond. “No one will be hurt if we get our diploma.”

(Juliet Williams, “Ruling Blocks Calif. High School Exit Exam”, AP/Forbes, May 12).

Here’s a story about a public health intervention that:

1. Appears to have reduced the rate of sexually transmitted diseases.
2. Especially by encouraging people to have a check-up.
3. Appears to have been fairly inexpensive.
4. Involved no coercion.

The Bay Area Reporter offers a story about a costumed character who promotes sexual disease control (sort of like Smokey the Bear encourages people to prevent forest fires). But the particular costume would scandalize many people. Read the whole article before you make up your own mind.

What a neat idea, so naturally it’s drawn cease-and-desist letters from the New York and San Francisco transit authorities (Wired, via Dennis Kennedy who got it from B.L. Ochman)(cross-posted from Point of Law).

…is now officially dead, reports Bill Quick (May 16)(via Instapundit)(see Apr. 6). The Federal Election Commission, on the other hand, remains a threat, according to Redstate.org (May 20)(also via Instapundit)(see Mar. 17, Mar. 31). More on campaign finance law and free speech: Jonathan Rauch, “McCain-Feingold at Rest”, National Journal/Reason Online, May 9.

San Francisco politicos have promised to soften some of the most speech-chilling aspects of draft legislation (see Apr. 3), but Eugene Volokh (Apr. 5) takes a close look and still finds plenty to worry about (& update May 20: plan dropped.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote April 5 on a proposed campaign finance regulation that would define “electioneering communication” to include weblogs that receive more than 500 hits from San Francisco voters. There would be a disclosure requirement (that must be made in a 14-point typeface) and potential reporting requirements. (via Southern California Law Blog and Personal Democracy Forum).

So, you’re a police officer and you see a Nissan truck zoom through a stop sign at 40 mph. You give chase, but the car speeds up and drives even more erratically. Do you:

(a) View this as a sign that this maniac driver must be stopped?

or

(b) Stop the chase. The guy is driving dangerously!

Lawsuit after lawsuit posit that police act inappropriately by not stopping the chase — even though that effectively creates a policy that rewards, and thus encourages, miscreants who put other drivers at risk by trying to escape the police. Simply put, policy (b) is the policy that will guarantee that drivers try to drive dangerously to force police to peel off, while policy (a) encourages all but the most wildly irrational to pull over.

In California on March 16, 2003, Joseph Boldt, allegedly under the influence of meth, sped up in his stolen vehicle after running the stop sign, and Sergeant Mark Farber followed. Boldt decided to try to escape by going southbound in the northbound lanes of I-280, at speeds of up to 110 mph, causing three other accidents before smashing into an innocent driver, Girish Wadhwani, critically injuring him. Boldt’s passenger, Bobby Luke Kleinheinz, also wanted on an arrest warrant at the time, wasn’t wearing his seatbelt and was killed; the wheelchair-bound Boldt faces second-degree murder charges, though his trial has been postponed at least a couple of times because of crash-related health problems. Kleinheinz’s family is, of course, suing the police, rather than Boldt. The Association of Bay Area Governments paid Wadhwani $3.15 million for his broken bones. “Millbrae officials said they believed Farber acted appropriately but agreed to the settlement for fear of losing an even larger award during a civil trial.” (Ryan Kim, “$3.15 million settlement in high-speed crash”, San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 26; AP, Mar. 26; Amy Yarbrough, “Man awarded $3.15 million in damages after police chase”, San Mateo County Times, Mar. 19; “Crash trial postponed”, SF Examiner, Sep. 14; Ethan Fletcher, “Chase case heads for trial”, San Francisco Independent, Jul. 23; Michelle Durand, “Fatal wrong-way driver begins murder trial today”, San Mateo Daily Journal, Jun. 8; Michelle Durand, “Murder trial delayed for fatal wrong way driver”, Dec. 24, 2003; WPIX-5, Mar. 19, 2003; previous OL posts on high-speed chases: Mar. 15 & Sep. 21, 2003)(& letter to the editor, Apr. 12).