answer to amended complaint

8/2/2019 Answer to Amended Complaint

1/9

5

10

15

20

25

/ ,\ ..

[ 234

6789

1112

{ 13141617

JA11ES K. HAHN, City AttorneyEDWARD C. FARRELL, Chief Assis tantci ty Attorney for WATER AND POWERTHOMAS C. BONAVENTURA,Senior Assis tant City AttorneyJOHN HAGGERTY, Assis tant City AttorneyEDHARD J . PEREZ, Deputy City Attorney1800 City Hall East200 North Main St ree tLos Angeles, cal i fornia 90012(213) 485-3160Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED S ~ A T E S D I S ~ R I C T COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PREFERRED COMl1UNICATIONS,a California corporat ion, INC. , )) NO. 83 5846 C311 (3X))Pla in t i f f , ) ANSHER TO A['lEtlDED) COMPLAINTv. ))CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ca l i fo rn ia , )a municipal corporat ion, andDE? AE\T:1 ENT 01:' HATER AND POWER, ))a nunicipal u t i l i t y , ))Defendants. )

)18

19 Defendants for an a n s ~ e r to the anended conpla in t a d ~ i t ,deny and allege as follows:

21 1. Defendants have no knowledge or i n f o r ~ a t i o n suf f ic ien t22 to forn a bel ief regarding the t ru th of the a l lega t ion contained in23

p a r a g r a ~ h 1 and therefore deny such al legat ions . 24 2. Defendants a d ~ i t the a l lega t ion contained in paragraph

2. 26 3. Defendants adni t tha t the Department of Hater and27 Power (" !) ' , ;?") is a depart::'.ent of defendant City and that Dil? i s

28

- 1 CA 14 b


2/9

5

10

15

20

25

( "234

67S9

11

12

13

14

1617

1819

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

authorized by Los Angeles City Charter Section 220(5) to sue and besued independently. Defendants deny each and every o:heral legat ion contained in paragraph 3.

4. Defendants deny tha t the claims herein ar i se underSections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. S e c ~ i o n s 1 and 2) orthe Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26 or Sections and16). Moreover, th i s Court previously dismissed a l l a l lega t ionswith regard to the a n t i - t r u s t c l a i ~ s and the ~ i n t h Circui : Court ofAppeals affirmed the Court ' s d i s ~ i s s a l . I n a s ~ u c h as p la in : i : : hasnot appealed the aff i rmat ion of the d i s ~ i s s a l , the an t i t rus t claimsand any concomitant a l lega t ions are no longer legal ly viah le , arei r re levant , and not a par t of th i s proceeding.

Defendants fur ther deny tha t the pendent Sta te c l a i ~ s arise under Conmon Law, s ta tu tes or the cons t i tu t ion of the Sta teof California and deny tha t th is cour t has anci l la ry or pendentju r isd ic t ion over the p la n t i f f s alleged s t a t e causes of ac t ion .Moreover, said claims were dismissed without prejudice with leaveto re f i le in the s t a t e courts . That d i s ~ i s s a l was not appealed bythe p la in t i f : and, the re fore , the alleged s t a t e claims arei r re levant and not a par t of th i s proceeding.

5. Defendants deny tha t they have committed in :he pas tor are now committing any viola t ions of law and deny tha t p la in t i f fhas suffered or is suffe r ing any in jury.

6. Defendants deny each and every al legat ion contained inparagraph 6 and fur ther defendants al lege tha t cable te lev is ion isa dis t inc t for;n of COiiHTlunication and has no s i ~ i l a r i t y ofconst i tu t ional s ignif icance with tha t of the pr in t media.

- ') -


3/9

5

10

15

20

25

;

(, 7. Defendants deny each and every al legat ion contained in2 paragraph 7 and fur ther a l lege that cable te levis ion is a natural3 ~ o n o p o l y and tha t there is l i ~ i t e d physical space on ut i l i ty poles4 and in u t i l i t y ducts for a l l cable c o ~ p a n i e s who wish to construct

a cable te levis ion system.6 8. Defendants admit that cable conpanies dissen:nace7 programs via electronic s ignals from a cent ra l locat ion t h r o ~ g h8 cables to the te levis ion se ts of subscr ibers . However, defendants9 al lege that said programming is predominantly a retransmission of

programs produced by others brought in from dis tan t pOints and that11 vi r tual ly no programming is orig:nated by or is the creation of the12 cable operators . Defendants have no knowledge or information13 suf f ic ient to a d ~ i t or deny the remainder of the al legat ions14 contained in paragraph 8 and therefore deny such al legat ions .

/ 9. Defendants deny each and every al legat ion contained in16 paragraph 9. Defendants fur ther a l lege tha t p la in t i f f had an equal17 opportunity to par t ic ipate in the franchise process and consciously18 refused to do so. Moreover, p l a in t i f f has never demonstrated to19 defendants or made any ef for t to d e ~ o n s t r a t e tha t i t is capable of

performing or that i t ever intended to perform any of the cable21 services asser ted in paragraph 9 or aoide by any of defendants22 rules or regulat ions .23 10. Defendants have no knowledge or information24 suf f ic ient to forn a be l ie f regarding the t ru th of the a l l e g a ~ i o n s

contained in paragraph 10 and therefore deny such al legat ions .26 11. Defendants have no knowledge or infornat ion27 SUff ic ient to form a bel ief regarding the t ru th of the a l lega t ions28 . contained in paragraph 11 and therefore deny such a l lega t lons .


4/9

(' 12. Defendants deny that pla in t i f f properly a t t e ~ p t e d toobtain requis i te l icenses , p e r ~ i t s or f ranchises to operate a ca8le

3 te levis ion business in the City of Los Angeles. Defendants have no.; Iknowled or i n f o r ~ a t i o n suf f i c i en t to f o r ~ a be l ie f regarding the5 t ruth of the remainder of the al legat ions in paragraph 12 and6 therefore deny such a l lega t ions .7 13. Defendants deny each and every al legat ion contained8 in paragraph 13.9 14. Defendants deny each and every a l lega t ion contained

10 in paragraph 14.11 15. Defendants deny each and every a l lega t ion contained12 in paragraph 15.13 16. Defendants deny each and every al legat ion contained14 in paragraph 16.15 17. Defendants denv e ~ c h ane eve:v al legat ion contained

I16 ,in paragraph 17. 17 18. Defendants deny each and every al legat ion regarding18 the Fi r s t and Second C l a i ~ s for re l i e f contained in ""'a"agrao' s 18- l :- ' ' ' ' n19 through 34. Said claims have been d i s ~ i s s e d with prejudice and20 said dismissal has been affi rmed on appeal by the Ninth Circu i t21 Court of Appeals and should be barred froD fUrther l i t i ga t ion .

19. Defendants respond to each paragraph incorpora te j23 into ragraph 35 in the same fashion as defendants have responded, 24 to each paragraph separa te ly hereinabove.( 25 20. Defendants deny each an d every a l lega t ion in)

paragraph 36 . 2627 21. Defendants deny each and every a l lega t ion in

,paragraph 37.I.


5/9

5

10

15

20

25

234

6 7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27 !28

22. Defendants deny each and every al legat ion inparagraph 38.

23. Defendants deny each an d every al legat ion inparagraph 39.

24. Defendants deny each and every al legat ior . inparagraph 40.

25. Defendants deny each and every a l lega t ion inparagraph 41.

26. Defendants deny each and every al legat ion inparagraph 42.27. Defendants r e s ~ o n d to each p a r a g r a ~ h i n c o r ~ o r a t e d

into paragraph 43 in the same fashion as defendants responded toeach paragraph separate ly hereinabove.

28. Defendants deny tha t the s ta te c l a i ~ s ar ise underCommon Law, s t a tu t es or the Const i tu t ion of the State of cal i forniaand deny that th i s Court has anc i l la ry or pendent ju r isd ic t ion overthe p la in t i f f ' s al leged s ta te causes of act ion contained inparagraph 44.

29. Defendants deny each and every a l lega t ion containedin paragraph 45.

30. Defendants respond to each paragraph incorporatedinto paragraph 46 in the s a ~ e fashion as defendants re onded toeach paragraph separate ly hereinabove.


32 . Defendants deny each and every a l lega t ion containedin paragrapn 48.


6/9

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33. Defendants deny each and every al legat ion containedin paragraph 49.


35. Defendants respond to each paragraph incorporated inparagraph 51 in the same manner as defendants have responded tosaid paragraphs separately hereinabove.

36. Defendants deny each and every al legat ion containedin paragraph 52 and al lege tha t pla in t i f f s are making fr ivolous andspecious al legat ions and tha t the Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act (RICO), 18 O.S.C. sections 1961 e t seq. , does not- --"apply to defendants.










7/9

45. Defendants deny each and every a l lega t ion concained2 in paragraph 61.3 46. Defendants deny each and every a l lega t ion contained4 . in paragraph 62.5 47. Defendants deny each and every a l lega t ion contained6 in paragraph 63.7 48. Defendants deny each and every a l lega t ion contained8 , in paragraph 64. 9 49. Defendants deny each and e v e r ~ a l lega t ion contained

10 In paragraph 65.11 For a Fi r s t , Separate and J i s c inc : Je:ense to the a8ended12 conpla in t defendants a l lege :13 50. The a8ended c08plaint fa i l s to s ta te a c la i8 upon14 which re l i e f Qay be granted aga ins t defendants In tha t the15 res t r ic t ion of access for cable t e lev is ion i s j ~ s t i f i e d because16 cable te levis ion i s a natura l monopoly and a lso because of the17 l imited space on u t i l i t y poles and in u t i l i t y duc ts .18 For a Second, Separate and J i s t i nc : Defense to the amended19 cOQplaint defendants a l lege : 20 51. The cour t l acks ju r isd ic t ion because t h i s act ion does21 not ar i se under the Fi r s t ~ ~ e n d m e n t to the united Sta tes22 Const i tu t ion in tha t there does not ex i s t a Fi r s t Anend8ent r igh t

. to build a caDle te lev is ion sys :en .For a _ i rd , Separate and D1Stinct Defense to the amendedL 25 complaint defendants a l lege :26 i 52. The amended cOQplaint f a i l s to s ta te a claiQ uponI7 IwhiCh re l i e f may be granted agains t defendants in tha t RICO, 18

28 i U.S.C. Section 1961 e t sea . , was intended to stop racke teers froni --7 -

24


8/9

5

10

15

20

25

i n f i l t r a t i ng leg i t imate businesses and not intended for ~ s e asa ins t2 governmental agencies regulat ing cable te levis ion f rancnis ing.3 For a Fourth, Separate and Dist inc t Defense to the amended4 complaint defendants a l lege :

53. The amended complaint fa i l s to s ta te a c l a i ~ ~ p o n 6 which re l i e f may be granted against defendants in that the amended7 complaint fa i l s to a l lege the requis i te predicate faces \vhich8 demonstrate violat ions of the KICO s ta tu tes .9 For a Fi rs t , Separate and Dist inct Affirmative Defense to

the amended complaint, defendants al lege:11 54. That with regard to the issue of the a n t i : r ~ s t 12 claims, the p l a in t i f f is barred by res judicata and co l la te ra l13 estoppel inasmuch as the claim was dismissed with preJudice by t h i s14 court and said dismissal was affi rmed on appeal .

For a Second, Separate and Dist inct Affirmative Defense to16 the amended complaint defendants a l lege :17

the pla in t i f f is barred by res judicata and co l la te ra l estoppel55. That with regard to the alleged pendent s ta te cla ims,

18

19 inasmuch as the pendent claims were dismissed without pre judice byth is cour t to be r e f i l ed in the State courts . Said dismissal was

21 not appealed by the p l a in t i f f and thus the dismissal is a f ina l22 j ~ d g e m e n t as to the s ta te c l a i ~ s . 23 For a Third, Se ra te and Dis t inc t Affirmative Defense to24 the amended complaint defendants al lege:

56. That p la in t i f f ~ a s waived any and a l l r igh t to claiml 26 a violat ion of law or suffered in jury because p l a in t i f f refused to27 properly seek a franchise from defendants .28

i!'I - Q


9/9

5

10

15

20

25

.' "

('234

6789

1112131416171819

21222324

26l28

For a Fourth, S e p a r a ~ e and D i s ~ i n c t A f E i r ~ a t i v e D e ~ e n s e tothe amended conplaint defendant a l leses :

57. Defendants deny tha t the RICO s t a t u t e s , IS U.S.C.sect ion 1961 ~ . , apply but even a s s u ~ i n s tha t they do,p la in t i f f has fa i led to f i l e i t s c l a i ~ w i ~ h ~ n the t i ~ e requi red bythe proper Statute of L i ~ i t a t i o n s and is therefore barred f r o ~ seeking any remedy thereunder .

Defendants therefore denies tha t p l ~ i n ~ i f f lS en t i t l ed tothe re l i e f prayed for in the C o ~ p l a i n t or A ~ e n d ~ e n t to thecomplaint or any par t thereof , or to any r e l i e f asa ins t defendants ,and defendants pray tha t the c o ~ p l a i n t and A ~ e n d n e n t to C o ~ p l a i n t be dismissed with cos ts and at torney fees to defendants .

rDATED: v- - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Respectful ly s u b ~ i t t e d , ~ A ~ E S K. HAHN, City AttorneyE D ~ A R D C. ~ A R R E L L , Chief Assi s t an tci ty Attorney for WATER AND POWERT H O ~ A S C. BONAVENTURA,Senior Assis tant City AttorneyJOHH H;l.GGSR:'Y IAssis tant City AttorneyED'.{ARD J . PERE Z ,Deputy City Attorney

( / ;J(;/ - , -, /. "7 i /. "3y"c cC. ,.'-' r - - . - ~ ~ /"--:: J \i r. iD .....J . ? ::R E :; ..:JDeputy City Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants ,CI:'Y OF LOS ANGELES ALlDD S ? : ' . . R T ~ - 1 E ~ l T OF l'IATER AND pm-lER

9

answer to amended complaint

Documents