Interpretation of Measure B's 'Provisional Fee' Letter Disputed

Rhett Pardon

LOS ANGELES — Attorneys representing the Los Angeles County officials sued over the constitutionality and proposed implementation of Measure B say that they dispute Vivid Entertainment's representation in its motion for judgment in the case.

Vivid, as well as performers Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, have filed motions for judgment and for preliminary injunction over implementation of voter-approved Measure B, which mandates barrier protection between adult performers on porn shoots in the county.

Vivid attorneys said that the county Public Health department failed to “obtain reliable evidence supporting the provisional fee” for Measure B permits in their pursuit for a judgment on pleadings of the case.

The county's attorneys submitted a response over the provisional fee issue after Monday's hearing over whether the AIDS Healthcare Foundation should be granted intervenor status.

The county has taken a position of neutrality regarding whether Measure B is constitutional and preempted by California law

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson on Monday said he would take the intervenor issue under submission. At the hearing, Pregerson said that he was inclined to grant the AHF's motion to intervene.

The provisional fee issue stems from a Dec. 14 letter disseminated to several hundred producers of adult films in Los Angeles County, setting a fee ranging from $2,000-$2,500 per year per studio. The letter was sent to Porn Valley producers from the Public Health Director Jonathan Fielding.

Vivid Entertainment attorneys H. Louis Sirkin and Paul Cambria have requested that Pregerson take judicial notice that the county failed to “obtain reliable evidence supporting the provisional fee.”

But the county's counsel said that Vivid's representations are improper because they rely upon "interpretation" of the contents of the letter.

"Because defendants dispute plaintiffs’ interpretation of the contents of the letter (and not the letter’s existence), plaintiffs’ representations regarding the provisional fee should be disregarded for purposes of their motion for judgment on the pleadings," the county's attorneys said.

Pregerson, who has yet to formally decide the AHF's status in the case, will hear arguments over Vivid's request to judicially notice the letter on May 6 at U.S. District Court.

  

  

View Document