AHF Blamed for 'Skyrocketing' LA County Health Dept. Legal Costs

LOS ANGELES—According to attorneys for Los Angeles County, the dramatic rise in legal expenses incurred by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is the fault of litigation by one entity: AIDS Healthcare Foundation, whose longtime adversarial relationship with the County was the subject of a Patch article on the current tussle between AHF and county officials over ways to prevent the spread of invasive meningococcal disease. But tucked into the article was an exchange that took place during yesterday's weekly meeting of the LA County Board of Supervisors. According to writer Elizabeth Marcellino, "Earlier today, county attorneys reporting to the Board of Supervisors attributed a spike in legal costs to fighting four lawsuits filed by AHF." Supervisor Don Knabe, responding to an estimated year-over-year increase in DPH litigation costs of more than 40 percent, asked the lawyers, “Why would their legal fees suddenly skyrocket?” According to Marcellino, "Steven Estabrook, the county’s litigation cost manager, said he couldn’t provide a total off the top of his head, but that 'quite a bit of money' was being spent on battles with AHF, as well as on a lawsuit related to lead-based paint." AHF, a non-profit whose deep pockets are regularly replenished as a result of aggressive, even abusive litigation, has been threatening to increase County Health's legal costs even more, as AVN reported earlier this month on recent threats issued by AHF. "Building on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' refusal to strike down Judge Dean D. Pregerson's decision in Vivid Entertainment, et al v. Fielding (the Measure B case)," wrote AVN senior Editor Mark Kernes, "AHF General Counsel Tom Myers has written a letter to the County's attorney Mark J. Saladino, insisting that the county implement a filming permit plan, even though, thanks to the one part of Measure B that [Judge Dean D.] Pregerson struck down, it doesn't yet know how much to charge for it." Obviously anticipating some foot-dragging by the county, Kernes reports that Myers went "on to threaten Saladino that if the permitting scheme is not developed and implemented within 30 days, 'there will be no choice but to seek a writ of mandate compelling the performance of this ministerial duty.'" In response, Saladino challenged AHF's interpretation of Pregerson's ruling, adding for good measure, "Accordingly, any litigation on this matter, as threatened in your letter, would be legally insupportable." But anyone who thinks that the prospect of "legally insupportable" litigation would stay AHF's hand does not understand the organization, or its determination to force any local, state or even the federal government to bend to its cause to make a criminal out of anyone who would dare produce commercial pornography without forcing every performer to use a condom and/or other protective gear, no matter the circumstance.   In related news, Reuters reported today that AHF's latest move to put a measure on the state ballot "next year to require porn actors to use condoms during film production, expanding a Los Angeles County rule that survived a legal challenge," took a step forward with the filing of the measure with the state on Tuesday. An analysis of the language in a early version of the ballot measure was provided by AVN in November. We are currently analyzing the exact text of the measure filed yesterday by AHF to see if it is the same as that contained in the earlier version, and will report on that when the analysis is complete.