LOS ANGELES - Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory C. O'Brien, Jr. today dismissed a lawsuit filed against a local tenants' association and its members in retaliation for their free speech. The tenants and their association had been sued by the owner of Lincoln Place, a 795-unit apartment complex, for engaging in advocacy on behalf of low-income tenants. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California defended the First Amendment rights of the tenants and their association.

The Lincoln Place Tenants' Association is a community-based organization that, since the late-1980's, has fought to preserve affordable housing in the Venice community. In particular, the tenants' association has been fighting developers' plans to evict Lincoln Place tenants, tear down their homes, and replace them with luxury townhouses that would be out of reach to low- and moderate-income tenants. Many of the people who live at Lincoln Place, including members of the tenants' association, are elderly, disabled, or single mothers. If their homes were destroyed, they would have nowhere else to go.

On September 20, 2000, the Lincoln Place owners and developers sued the tenants' association and 12 individual tenants in direct retaliation for their advocacy activities. The case, Pfeiffer Venice Properties LLC v. Bernard, et al., Superior Ct. No. BC 237108, is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP"), brought by a well-financed private land development company to chill the free speech of grassroots activists. In 1992, the California Legislature enacted strong protections against SLAPP suits, allowing courts to throw out such litigation at an early stage and to award fees to activists wrongfully sued in retaliation for their free speech.

The tenants' association and its members filed a SLAPP motion on November 17, 2000, after the companies refused to dismiss their meritless lawsuit. The development companies amended their complaint on December 5, 2000, dropping their claims against all but two of the individual tenants. The tenants' association and the two remaining tenants to file a second SLAPP motion on February 5, 2001.

Judge O'Brien today granted the tenants' second SLAPP motion in its entirety. Describing the lawsuit as offensive, Judge O'Brien threw out all the developer's claims against the tenants' and the tenants association.

"This lawsuit was an abuse of the legal process," said Dan Toakji, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, "brought by a well-financed neighborhood bully to intimidate tenants brave enough to stand up for their rights. From start to finish, the Lincoln Place owners have tried to silence anyone who disagrees with their plans to destroy affordable housing in the Venice community. Today's ruling shows that the SLAPP law has teeth, and sends a loud and clear message that companies will pay a heavy price if they attempt to bludgeon community advocates through litigation."

Within 10 days, the tenants' association will be filing a motion for attorneys' fees against the Lincoln Place owners, as provided for by California's anti-SLAPP law to punish those who abuse the legal process as Lincoln Place's owners have done.

LOS ANGELES - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a blow on Friday, February 16, to Mattel's efforts to block artist Tom Forsythe from using Barbie in his artwork. Forsythe used the image of Barbie in a variety of poses to critique the materialistic and gender-oppressive values he believes the doll embodies. Mattel, in keeping with its history of employing heavy-handed litigation to squelch free speech involving its iconic doll, sued Forsythe, alleging a variety of claims, including trademark and copyright infringement. The company sought a preliminary injunction against Forsythe, represented by the ACLU of Southern California and the private firm of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin. A Federal District Court denied the motion, and the corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals to overturn that decision.

The Court said no.

"We are pleased by the Court of Appeals' decision," said Peter Drobac, one of the Howard, Rice attorneys defending Mr. Forsythe. "We think Judge Lew's decision plainly was correct. The Ninth Circuit apparently shares that view. Unfortunately, Mattel continues to seek to censor Mr. Forsythe's artistic expression and his rights under the intellectual property laws to comment on and critique Mattel's products. Mr. Forsythe therefore will continue to defend his rights, and we will seek summary judgment on Mattel's claims."

Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, concurred.

"The Court of Appeals," said Eliasberg, "after reviewing the facts and the legal basis of the district court's ruling, concluded that there was no realistic chance of Mattel prevailing. It would be appropriate at this point for Mattel to drop the case, but we're not counting on that."

The firing of Police Commission President Gerald Chaleff by Mayor Riordan is an effort to shift the blame for the lack of police reform in Los Angeles. The Mayor himself is responsible for blocking progress on police reform and is now trying to make Commissioner Chaleff the fall guy.

This is particularly reprehensible and ironic, because Commissioner Chaleff is a leading proponent of reform. In his tenure as Police Commissioner and President of the Commission, he has been unafraid to take a hard, clear look at the bad news of a police department that is corrupt and abusive, and he has been a reliable messenger for the need for reform, despite opposition from the Mayor's office and from the police department's leadership.

This leader in advocating for reform will now be cut out of the reform process, will not have a role in selecting the consent decree monitor, and will be unable to bring his commitment to real change to the ongoing project of seeing that the consent decree is enforced.

The Mayor made a grave mistake today.