Nota Bene

The Hollywood Repoter, Esq. reports:

A film producer and former partner of Steven Seagal has filed a $10 million defamation suit against the Los Angeles Times and Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Chuck Phillips.

Julius Nasso filed suit Wednesday in New York Supreme Court taking issue with a phrase used in a June 7 story headlined “Pellicano lawyers target FBI agent.”

The story, which reported on indicted private investigator Anthony Pellicano’s developing legal strategy in his criminal wiretapping case, stated: “Seagal had been in a film partnership with reputed Gambino crime family member Julius Nasso.”

Two days after the article was published, Nasso’s lawyer, Robert Hantman, sent the Times a demand for a retraction, according to the complaint.

The San Jose Mercury News reports:

East Bay students who sued over the exit exam have reached a tentative settlement with the state, California schools superintendent Jack O’Connell announced Thursday.

The settlement is contingent on passage of state legislation that would entitle 12th graders who fail the exam to two more years of instruction.

The settlement would cement the California High School Exit Exam as a prerequisite for graduation, ending years of confusion over its legal validity.

“Final agreement to this proposed settlement will put to rest this challenge, leaving the exit exam in place,” O’Connell said in his statement.

The Napa Valley Register reports:

Redwood Middle School’s controversial dress code is heading to the California Court of Appeal, even before there is a final ruling in the legal challenge to the code brought by several Redwood parents and students.

The Napa Valley Unified School District has decided to appeal Napa County Superior Court Judge Ray Guadagni’s preliminary injunction, temporarily suspending the dress code at the north Napa middle school.

Guadagni held earlier this month that the parents and students had a good chance of winning on their claim that the code violates free speech rights of students. The decision to appeal could net the school district the legal ammunition it needs to keep the dress code intact while the litigation continues. If the district loses, however, it could further unravel the school’s case.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit on behalf of local families in March, charging the Redwood Middle School dress code violated the U.S. and state constitutions, as well as the state education code. The dress code bars students from wearing denim, stripes, corporate and other logos, and clothing of specific colors. One student was found in violation of the code for wearing socks embroidered with the Winnie-the-Pooh character Tigger.

The Sacramento Bee reports:

Sheriff Lee Baca blocked access to the deputies union Web site because of what department officials describe as unfair criticism in the association’s newsletter.

The move ratchets up tense relations between Baca and the Association of the Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which recently released a survey showing a vast majority of deputies are unhappy with Baca.

Union president Steve Remige has also ridiculed Baca’s efforts to release heiress Paris Hilton from jail, a decision that was overturned by a judge.

Remige called Baca spiteful and petty for blocking department computer access to the association Web site (http://www.alads.org). He said it hampers deputy ability to get information about benefits, overtime and other issues.

Tomorrow the California Supreme Court will issue its opinion in People v. Black (S126182). Among other issues, the Court will determine whether trial judges or juries should assess the factors that determine whether a person convicted of multiple offenses should be sentenced consecutively or concurrently. Historically, this has been the role of the trial judge. However, whether this practice runs afoul of the Sixth Amendment in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 127 S.Ct. 856, will be determined tomorrow.

Update 1: The opinion has been issued.  You can read it here.  More later.

The Sacramento Bee reports:

As many as 2,100 newly paroled sex offenders are living illegally near schools and parks under the tough residency requirements passed overwhelmingly by California voters last fall, the state corrections secretary said Wednesday.

The department will give the parolees 45 days to find new homes, a move that could spark renewed conflicts in communities throughout the state as sex offenders seek to comply with the law.

“We want to be public that we have some people who are out of compliance but … we are fully committed, and the governor is fully committed, to complying with the housing component of Jessica’s Law,” James Tilton, director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, told The Associated Press late Wednesday.

Tilton said the moves could leave some parolees homeless or force them to live in substandard housing.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s “Deep Links” Blog reports:

After more than three years of litigation, a single mom who was improperly swept up in the RIAA’s P2P litigation “driftnet” has finally been vindicated. An Oklahoma court has ordered the RIAA to pay nearly seventy thousand dollars in fees and costs to defendant Debra Foster. EFF, Public Citizen, the ACLU, and the American Association of Law Libraries filed an amicus brief in the case, supporting Foster’s motion for fees.

Soon after the RIAA brought suit against Foster in 2004, it became clear that the the recording industry was pursuing the wrong person. But the RIAA not only refused to dismiss the case, it brought additional, unsupported claims of secondary infringement. Finally, two years after filing suit, the RIAA dropped the claims and attempted to walk away scot–free.

The First Appellate District upheld the right of the 49′ers football team to implement the NFL’s policy of patdown searches of ticketholders. From the decision:

Appellants Daniel and Kathleen Sheehan sued respondent San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (49ers) for violation of article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution (Privacy Initiative), based on the team’s implementation of a patdown policy mandated by the National Football League (NFL). They challenge the dismissal of their cause following the sustaining of the 49ers’ demurrer without leave to amend. We conclude that the Sheehans cannot demonstrate that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and accordingly affirm the judgment.

Read the opinion in Sheehan v. The San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (July 17, 2007 A114945) here.

What are the consequences in a white collar criminal case when government prosecutors coerce a corporation into leaving corporate employees without a paid legal defense team? From yesterday’s opinion in the high profile KPMG case:

The government threatened to indict, and thus to destroy, the giant accounting firm, KPMG LLP (“KPMG”). It coerced KPMG to limit and then cut off its payment of the legal fees of KPMG employees. KPMG avoided indictment by yielding to government pressure. Many of its personnel did not. They now await trial, four of them deprived of counsel of their choice and most of the others unable to afford the defenses that they would have presented absent the government’s interference. This Court previously held that the government’s interference with KPMG’s payment of the legal fees of its employees and former employees violated the employees’ constitutional rights. The government now concedes that thirteen of the sixteen individuals formerly employed by KPMG (the “KPMG Defendants”) are entitled to dismissal, assuming that this Court’s previous ruling correct. But the government does not concede the correctness of that ruling. Accordingly, the Court has reconsidered Stein I carefully in light of the government’s arguments. It remains convinced that the ruling was correct. Indeed, additional evidence not previously considered strongly supports the Court’s decision. (more…)

The Sacramento Bee reports:

A judge has dismissed a case against ABC Television filed by five orphaned siblings who claim the network broke a contract to provide them a permanent home after their appearance on “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.”

In granting a motion for summary judgment last week, Judge Paul Gutman ruled the siblings had failed to prove their case against ABC, the production companies and the builder.

Although ABC built a new home for these orphans, the title in the home was vested in the orphans’ adopted family. When the orphans moved out in a disagreement with the family, the orphans looked to ABC for legal relief.