Remember the lawsuit filed by James Acres against Blue Lake Casino that you never heard about after some initial coverage, including by Lost Coast Outpost.
There was an appeal and a ruling. I have included the 2021 update in this post.
The Blumberg link is from 2018 and was not reported locally. Was it because it was not favorable to the defendants?
This disclosure is from a 2020 LOCO post. They disclose rarely and randomly. As I have pointed out a few times, why does LOCO not answer who else has a financial interest in this "local media monoploy"? That information is not available and you can look up any other business. We know the owners and publishers of other local media sources.
https://www.blumberglawgroup.com/post/victorious-defendant-in-bogus-lawsuit
Remember what I have said many times about taking on the system in Humboldt and local lawyers. Janssen Malloy and other local lawyers will represent the moneyed in Humboldt but would they take on a case and fight for someone like me or you and do it on a contigency or pro bono basis?
Acres had to file the lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court and still fight it in Apellate Court. He could not afford an attorney on the apellate level. It is very difficult for a pro per party to prevail.
Courts and Judges, especially in Humboldt and California, are not friendly to pro per. The system; the last resort for justice is also corrupt and tilted towards the wealthy.
Tribal sovereignity was significant in this case. For the most part, Acres still won.
It takes a long time and a lot of money to fight the entrenched bs in Humboldt and in courts. Even if you have the money, it isn't easy or a guaranteed victory.
Tribal sovereignity is one reason why tribes should have no interest in media. There are many conflicts of interest in Humboldt but the protections from tribal sovereignity are unique. It happens everywhere but in a small, rural county hours from the cities; the consequences are devastating.
Read the link for the appeal because it provides all the background from the original lawsuit.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. 34-2018-00236829-CU-PO-GDS David I. Brown, Judge. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
BLEASE, ACTING P. J.
"Suits against Indian tribes (and other sovereign entities) are generally barred by sovereign immunity. So too are some suits against tribal employees, though not because these employees enjoy sovereign immunity by virtue of their position. These suits are instead barred by sovereign immunity because, although nominally directed against an employee, they are really against the tribe. To determine the true defendant in these cases, courts focus on the remedy the plaintiff seeks. A suit against a tribal employee is really against the tribe if the plaintiff's requested relief must necessarily come from the tribe itself. But if, on the other hand, the plaintiff's suit would only impose personal liability on the sued employee, then the suit is, as pleaded, against the individual alone and sovereign immunity is inapplicable."
"This case concerns the aftermath of an Indian tribal casino's unsuccessful suit in tribal court against appellant James Acres following a contract dispute. After dismissal of the tribal case, Acres filed his own suit in state court against two officials of the casino, the casino's attorneys, a tribal court judge, the clerk of the tribal court, and various other individuals and entities. He alleged, among other things, that the parties he sued (collectively, respondents) wrongfully conspired to file the lawsuit against him in tribal court. He then sought monetary relief from respondents as redress for this alleged conduct. The trial court, however, found Acres's claims against all respondents barred by sovereign immunity and, as to the tribal judge and several others, also barred by judicial or quasi-judicial immunity."
On appeal, we reverse in part. Because Acres's suit, if successful, would bind only the individual respondents, and not the tribe or its casino, we find these respondents are not entitled to sovereign immunity. But, as to those respondents who have asserted personal immunity from suit (e.g., judicial immunity), we agree those respondents, with one exception, are immune from suit. "
JAMES ACRES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LESTER MARSTON et al., Defendants and Respondents.
James Acres, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Forman & Associates, George Forman, Jay B. Shapiro, Margaret C. Rosenfeld for Defendants and Respondents Arla Ramsey, Anita Huff, Thomas Frank, Lester Marston, Rapport and Marston, David Rapport, Darcy Vaughn, Ashley Burrell, Cooper DeMarse, and Kostan Lathouris. Lerch Sturmer, Jerome N. Lerch, Debra Sturmer, Nicole A. Deterding for Defendants and Respondents Boutin Jones, Inc., Michael Chase, Daniel Stouder, and Amy O'Neill. Berman Berman Berman Schneider & Lowary, Howard J. Smith for Defendants and Respondents Janssen Malloy LLP, Megan Yarnall, and Amelia Burroughs. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Kevin W. Alexander, Allison L. Jones for Defendants and Respondents Lester Marston, Ashley Burrell, Cooper DeMarse, and Darcy Vaughn.
DISPOSITION:
We reverse the trial court's ruling in favor of Ramsey, Frank, Boutin Jones, Janssen Malloy, Chase, Stouder, O'Neill, Yarnall, and Burroughs. In all other respects, we affirm. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
We concur: Mauro, J., Duarte, J.
2021:
Court of Appeals of California
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.