Adding AHF to Measure B Suit Would Prolong Case, Vivid Attorneys Say

Rhett Pardon

LOS ANGELES — Vivid Entertainment attorneys filed court papers this week explaining why the AIDS Healthcare Foundation shouldn't be able to intervene in its lawsuit against Los Angeles County over implementation of Measure B.

AHF President Michael Weinstein earlier this month asked a federal judge to allow him and other proposed intervenors — AHF employees Marijane Jackson, Arlette De La Cruz, Mark McGrath and Whitney Engeran, as well as the AHF-funded Campaign Committee Yes on B — to intervene in Vivid's suit against the county.

The AHF group said in earlier court papers that it seeks to join the suit because of “significantly protectable interest.”

But on Monday, Vivid attorneys said in a court brief that by adding the AHF as an intervenor, "it would only prolong the case and raise unnecessary issues that are not essential to the merits" and that defendants in the case — Los Angeles County, county Public Health Director Jonathan Fielding and the district attorney — have consistently taken steps to implement, enforce and defend Measure B.

"Indeed, the defendants have chosen to defend Measure B in this action, and may be required to pay [Vivid's] attorneys fees if the challenge to Measure B succeeds," Vivid attorneys said. "Thus, there is no reason to believe that defendants will not mount a vigorous defense of Measure B."

The AHF, which spent $2 million to qualify Measure B on the Los Angeles County ballot, in earlier court papers said that they seek to join the suit because at least two Los Angeles County supervisors have been critical over Measure B and that two other county officials — the county counsel and the public health director — have voiced skepticism over whether the law passed by voters can be enforced.

Calling the AHF's proposed intervention both unnecessary and improper, Vivid attorneys also said that the group hasn't even established or addressed its standing in the case under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

Under Article III, Rule 24, proposed intervenors must demonstrate an interest in this case that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.”

"[The AHF argues] that because they put Measure B on the ballot and supported its passage by the voters, they have an interest in these proceedings," Vivid attorneys said. "[They] do not, however, point to any actual or imminent, concrete interest in Measure B, other than their desire to see it upheld and enforced.

"For example, there is no claim that any of the proposed intervenors are involved in the creation of adult films, or engage in intimate contact with individuals who work in the adult film industry, such that the work place safety or alleged public health concerns that Measure B purports to address directly affect them."

Vivid attorneys — Robert Corn-Revere, Paul Cambria and H. Louis Sirkin — pointed out that, as the U.S. Supreme Court held in an Arizona group's bid to make English the official language of the state, "a general interest in the proper application of the law 'will not do' for Article III standing."

Vivid is seeking injunctive relief over enforcement of Measure B, Los Angeles County's Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act, which was approved by voters in November.

Vivid and two adult performers, Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, filed their suit in January at U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson will hear the AHF's motion to join the case on April 15.


View Document