AHF Seeks to Intervene in Vivid’s Lawsuit Over Measure B

Mar 7, 2013
0 0

LOS ANGELES — A group led by AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein has asked a federal court to allow them to intervene in Vivid Entertainment’s suit against the county over implementation of Measure B.


Weinstein, in a declaration to the court, says that 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.

As a result, Weinstein 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 — have asked U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson to allow them to intervene.

Generally, to be admitted into a lawsuit, an intervenor must have an interest in the subject matter of the original suit. In this case, AHF spent $2 million to qualify Measure B on the Los Angeles County ballot.

County attorneys, according to AHF attorney Samantha Azulay, neither support nor oppose the motion to intervene.

But Vivid attorneys, Azulay said, firmly oppose any intervention by Weinstein and the AHF.

Vivid, led by a trio of famed adult entertainment industry attorneys — Robert Corn-Revere, Paul Cambria and H. Louis Sirkin — are seeking injunctive relief over enforcement of 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.

In a declaration to the court, Weinstein wrote last week that county officials have been “hostile to the intent and purpose of Measure B for a number of years.”

Weinstein pointed to articles on county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky’s website speaking critically of the measure. He also pointed to county Supervisor Gloria Molina who opposed Measure B at a hearing last year.

Molina at the hearing questioned an AHF attorney on the practicality of enforcement of such a measure. “Why would we add to this burden,” Molina said. “I’m all in favor and support the end goal. [But] what I’m concerned about is the sausage in between,” referring to the law’s expense and liability to the county.

Weinstein also said that John Krattli, the county counsel, expressed concerns over Measure B and the desirability of trying to ensure a safe workplace for workers in the adult film industry.

“In this report, county counsel opines that the measure, should it pass, may not be enforceable in certain parts of Los Angeles County,” Weinstein told the court. “This position is in direct opposition to my and the other proponents’ understanding and intent of the measure.”

Weinstein said it is not the first time the county counsel’s office has voiced concerns over regulating porn shoots. Weinstein earlier brought action against the county.

In that suit, Weinstein said he sought to compel the Public Health department to perform its “ministerial duties to protect the public health in the making of adult films.”

Weinstein said the county counsel opined that there was no compelling public need to protect workers in the industry.

Pregerson is expected to rule on AHF’s motion to intervene by April 1.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Spread the love
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TrafficHolder.com - Buy & Sell Adult Traffic
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x