Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’

Driver and Writer CW Nevius Goes on a “Rant” Against the “Militant” Pedestrians of SF – Do They Have the Right to Jaywalk?

Friday, January 31st, 2014

Here’s the latest effort from CW Nevius, who’s taking a break from being spokesman for San Francisco’s right-side-of-the-aisle  political faction to go on a “bit of a rant” against local pedestrians. But what’s up with this?  

“Even when they are in the right, I worry about them. When the traffic light countdown gets to five or six, they step confidently into the crosswalk — which is their right…”

But pedestrians don’t have “the right” to do so. It’s agin CA law – check out V C Section 21456,* which is dealt with by Rule #3 of the Five Rules for Pedestrians.

Don’t you have an editor, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, you’re too old and experienced to have an editor, and plus, editors cost money, that’s right.

But don’t you have a fact checker, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, you’re too old and experienced to have a fact checker, and plus, fact checkers cost money, that’s right.

But don’t you have a photographer, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, photographers cost money. So all your observations, we’ll just have to take your word about them. OK fine. BTW, [sarcasmmode ON] nice stock photo you’ve got there, Neve. “Cause a stock photo taken in the People’s Republic of China, you know, from more than a thousand li away, well, that really illustrates how “militant” and “freaking nuts” San Francisco peds are, huh? [sarcasmmode OFF]

And oh, BTW Neve, the peds of SF aren’t militant, not at all. Try to find a different word for what you mean.

Of course you’re new in town, I get that. Sure, welcome to San Francisco, Neve.

But you’re doing a half-assed job doing your half-time gig.

You need to try harder.

*”Walk, Wait, or Don t Walk

21456. Whenever a pedestrian control signal showing the words “WALK” or “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or other approved symbol is in place, the signal shall indicate as follows:

(a) “WALK” or approved “Walking Person” symbol. A pedestrian facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.

(b) Flashing or steady “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol. No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or otherwise leave the roadway while the “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol is showing.

Amended Ch. 413, Stats. 1981. Effective January 1, 1982.”

Uh Oh, Now There’s a Lawsuit Against the City for Recent Ellis Act Legislation – SFAA & realtors Fighting Us

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

Read it and weep, San Francisco. We’re getting sued:

“For Immediate Release, January 29, 2014:

San Francisco Housing Associations File Lawsuit to Block Anti-Family Legislation

San Francisco – On Tuesday January 28, 2014, the San Francisco Apartment Association, Coalition for Better Housing and the San Francisco Association of REALTORS® filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of legislation known as the Avalos Ellis Act and Merger Prohibition Legislation.

 The legislation was passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed into law by Mayor Ed Lee in violation of building owners’ rights under the state law known as the Ellis Act.

 The legislation prohibits owners of multi-unit buildings from combining units in a building for ten years following an Ellis Act eviction or for five years following an owner-move in eviction.

 On a practical level, the legislation prevents families who own a building from creating a home that meets their needs. For example, the legislation prevents a family from combining two small units into a larger one to provide a home for a growing family. Couples with young children often find themselves in need of additional space they did not anticipate when they purchased a rental building, yet the legislation punishes them.

 Only 2 percent of new housing built in San Francisco since 2001 are single-family homes that provide adequate space for families, often with multiple generations living together. Lack of adequate housing to meet the needs of families has contributed San Francisco losing 5,278 people younger than 18 between 2000 and 2010, according to the census.

 “The San Francisco Association of REALTORS® supports the rights of private property owners for the free use of their property as their needs suit them.  This legislation only exacerbates the problems families face in finding adequate housing and drives out the families that have created the diversity we want and celebrate in our city,” said Walt Baczkowski, CEO of the San Francisco Association of Realtors.

 Because so few single family homes are being constructed, families rely on improving buildings they own, including tenancies in common to add living space. This legislation prohibits them from creating the home they need in a building they own.

 “Families are fleeing San Francisco due to a multitude of reasons that include a lack of adequate space for growing families that often include multiple generations. This legislation exacerbates that problem by punishing and limiting options for families who simply seek to create a home that meets the needs of their family,” stated Janan New, Executive Director of the San Francisco Apartment Association. “This legislation punishes hard working families, while doing little to protect renters.”

 The lawsuit states that the legislation is pre-empted by state law known as the Ellis Act, which allows building owners to take a building off the rental market and convert those units to condominiums or single -family homes. Under the law, building owners are already required to give occupants up to one year advance notice and provide relocation fees of $5,210 per tenant, up to a maximum of $15,632, plus $3,473 additional for tenants who are senior or disabled.

 “My clients are seeking relief from this just-passed legislation which unfairly takes away the right of individuals and families who simply want to create a home for themselves and their family in a building they own,” stated Jim Parrinello, attorney for the plaintiffs.

The Five Rules for Pedestrians and Crosswalks in California – Or, How to Make Sure You Win Your Lawsuit Against That Uber Driver

Tuesday, January 28th, 2014

1. YOU NEED TO BE IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN YOU GET HIT. This one’s pretty basic. And actually, it’s pretty flexible IRL. So let’s say you’re over the line a bit, your foot was 18 inches away from the white paint, well that could be OK. This rule becomes important if you’re halfway between blocks and you start jaywalking – a top cause of death of peds in SF. There’ve been many cases of this on the streets of San Francisco lately, like Hayes, Lombard, Masonic, Market, I could go on and on.

2. YOU CAN’T START TOO EARLY. This is called jumping the light. So of course, you’ve got to wait for the green light (or green WALK signal), you already know that. BUT THAT”S NOT ALL. You’ve also got to wait for traffic legally in the intersection to clear the intersection. So, GREEN DOES NOT MEAN “GO.” Green means you need to look for traffic clearing the intersection. And if that traffic isn’t over the speed limit and if that traffic entered the intersection on a yellow (which is totally OK under CA law, generally) and you step off and get hit, then, surprise, you’re the one at fault. So yes, you were in the crosswalk, but the collision is your fault, sorry.

3. YOU CAN’T START TOO LATE. This means that DON’T WALK means don’t walk. Now, in many places about town, you don’t have a ped-only signal telling you what to do. So, you’re allowed to start crossing on a green all the way until a yellow light appears. Effectively, the yellow light is your DON’T WALK signal. Of course this means that you might still be in the crosswalk when the light turns green for cross traffic. But now the law is in your favor, ped. The law says that cross traffic needs to wait for you to clear the intersection.

4. YOU CAN’T GO TOO SLOW. This one’s easy – it means you’re not supposed to stop during your trip across the street as best I can figure. (Leaving aside the law, there are standards for how long peds should have to cross an intersection, but they get thrown out the window when SF deals with 100-foot-plus wide monsters like horrible, horrible Octavia Boulevard, oh well.)

5. YOU CAN’T GO TOO FAST. Ooh, joggers. Your California Vehicle Code was written without concern for joggers, pretty much. So if you’re sprinting into an intersection and get hit by a MUNI, look for the SFPD to put the blame on you, yes, even though you were in the crosswalk.

Click to expand

So that’s reality.

But if you’d prefer a distorted, rose-colored view of reality, feel free to surf on over StreetsBlog SF (Straight Outta Park Slope!), or the SFBC (declining membership these days, despite being sponsored by SFGov SFMTA MUNI DPT) or Walk SF (sponsored by let’s-build-high-near-the-Waterfront real estate interests).

Your choice.

A Tale of Two Internship Ads: SF Weekly is Doing It Right, San Francisco Magazine is Doing It Wrong

Friday, November 22nd, 2013

(Doin’ It Right is important, you know, for its own sake, right?)

This internship ad for “luxury magazine” San Francisco Magazine is straight outta 2011 or someplace. Check it:

San Francisco Magazine Editorial and Web Internships (north beach / telegraph hill)

243 Vallejo St
San Francisco Magazine Editorial Internship
Location: San Francisco, CA (North Beach)
Duration of Position: 6 months (with a 3 month review), rolling basis
Work Schedule: Monday-Friday two weeks/month; Monday-Thursday two weeks/month (10am-5:30pm)

We’re looking for ambitious budding journalists to help produce our award–winning monthly regional magazine and website. This program gives interns a rare opportunity to be exposed to the full spectrum of journalism and magazine production through first-hand experience. Interns’ primary duties are fact-checking the magazine, researching, and reporting. Interns are also expected to pitch and write stories, with opportunities for taking on more responsibilities, depending on experience. Interns also participate in editorial and pitch meetings, work closely with editors, and often help report on feature packages. After the internship is completed, interns may have an opportunity to apply for our editorial fellowship, with a $1,000/month stipend and more challenging assignments. We’re currently seeking a website/blogging intern in addition to general editorial interns.

This internship is offered on a volunteer basis, or for college credit.”

Did you spot the issue, Gentle Reader?

Here’s some perspective from the plaintiff side and from the defense side.

Now keep in mind that this gig/these gigs are being advertised as “SanFranMag hiring!”

To wit:

Erik Verduzco ‏@Erik_Verduzco18 Nov Hiring full-time positions for no money? @Jenna_Scatena: @sanfranmag is hiring edit and web interns! Inquire within. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/wri/4188098787.html …

Now, compare that recent ad with this one:

SF Weekly:

Experience: We’re looking for interns who have some news writing experience (school newspapers count!) and are eager to tackle any story challenge (whether it be a source who isn’t returning your phone call or trying to find an interesting angle to general news story).

How To Apply: Please send your resume, clips, and cover letter to Mollie.McWilliams@sfweekly.comThe deadline for submitting is Dec. 31, and internships start mid January. Please note what sections you would like to write for.

*All interns will need to provide proof of school credit upon acceptance of an internship with SF Weekly.”

Do you see the difference?

I think you should.

Oh, what’s that, you’ve been doing things this way for years and it’s been working out?

Maybe so, but it won’t work out now. Sorry.

Oh, what’s that, your people won’t just up and sue you for peanuts?

But yes they will.

You’ll see.

If You’re Cool, You’ll RIde Your Bike Down Market Street Like This – Look Ma, No Hands – Coffee Cup Bonus

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

This dude is bad-ass.

Now, do you think this guy is on Strava going 60 MPH downhill, so fast he can’t stay in his lane?

Or do you think he’s the kind of Strava person who would plow through a Market Street crosswalk over the speed limit and then place all the blame for a ped death* on pedestrians?

I don’t.

Click to expand

Dude’s just taking it easy.

No medallions, dreadlocks, or black fists it’s just that gangster glare, with gangster raps that gangster shit, that makes the gang of snaps, uhh.

*True story. It’s the Chris Bucchere story. Our District Attorney’s Office has offered him a verrrrrry generous plea bargain deal, but there’s no resolution yet.

Photo of the SFPD Investigating the Death of David Hamzeh at 2030-2040 Fell Street – Bay to Breakers 2013

Monday, May 20th, 2013

Erin Sherbert has the details:

Bacon Bacon NIMBYs Make Saturday Night Live: Client(s) of Ryan Patterson Now a National Laughingstock

Sunday, May 19th, 2013

I believe Bagdad By The Bay has the latest on our Bacon Bacon saga at Ashbury Market near the corner of Frederick in not-so-scenic Ashbury Heights.

Well this wacky story just went national today on Saturday Night Live – here’s Weekend Update co-host Amy Poehler, via Brock Keeling of SFist:

Perhaps not that funny but at least now more people are mocking attorney Ryan Patterson and his unknown client(s).

At least now there’s an upside to this flagrant NIMBYism.

So feel free to add this incident…

…to the time this Kramer-esque sign hung off the back of nearby 1965 Page…

…and, for that matter, Kramer’s famous run in:

Cosmo Kramer vs. Kenny Rogers Roasters, Inc.

Bacon Bacon ‏@BaconBaconSF: “Apparently bacon bacon on SNL tonight!! Weekend update. Here we go folks. Here we go.” #baconbaconsf#snl

On It Goes…

Big Lawsuit Against Costco: Explaining to Tiffany and Co. Why It’s OK for People to Use the Term “Tiffany Setting”

Friday, March 22nd, 2013

What’s this? Tiffany and Company is suing Costco for selling diamonds using the term “Tiffany setting” or something?

“We now know that there are at least hundreds, if not thousands, of Costco members who think they bought a Tiffany engagement ring at Costco, which they didn’t. Costco knew what it was doing when it used the Tiffany trademark to sell rings that had nothing to do with Tiffany. This is not the kind of behavior people expect from a company like Costco and this case will shed a much-needed light on this outrageous behavior,” says Jeffrey Mitchell, a lawyer with Dickstein Shapiro who is representing Tiffany in the case. “The Tiffany brand has been damaged, Costco members have been damaged and Costco has profited from the sale of engagement rings by misrepresenting what they were. We will get to the bottom of what Costco was up to and why, and right a terrible wrong.

I cry foul.

You see, Tiffany, the phrase Tiffany mount and similar, well, that’s a genericized term these days, you know, like champagne.

Check it.

Oh, and Tiffany, Costco marks up the price of its worthless rocks a lot less than you do, right? That’s why Costco will take back any diamonds people bought if they were stupid enough to be confused over this issue.

It’s not like they were selling the rings in little blue boxes, right?

OK, Tiffany, keep on keeping on.

Now I’ve got a little shopping to do:

Uh Oh, San Franco-Based Uber Cab is in Trouble Again: Now Getting Sued in Massachusetts for Retaining Drivers’ Tips

Thursday, February 7th, 2013

Apparently, if you have your UberCab driver pahk the cah at Hahvahd Yahd, the tip you pay for that service doesn’t all go to the Uber taxi driver. Deets below.

Is that kind of a setup illegal? I don’t know but we’ll find out soon enough.

Oh Uber Taxi, will you ever win?

Now when Uber drivers aren’t Ubering, they’re illegally picking up people off the street like the drivers of all these vehicles were trying to do on Sacramento last year:

Click to expand

Uber Cab/

Uber Cab/

It IS your fault

All the deets:

“High-tech car service Uber faces more accusations

Lawsuit alleges labor law violations

BOSTON, Feb. 7, 2013  – A class-action lawsuit filed in US District Court last week alleges car service Uber Technologies Inc. is violating state law prohibiting employers from keeping tips earned by employees.

The suit, filed by a driver for Uber, is another strike against the upstart high-tech car service that has prompted legal and regulatory crackdowns in other cities.

“Uber’s practice of keeping a large portion of the drivers’ tips is both deceptive to the customers, who expect that the drivers get to keep the gratuities that they have given them, and blatantly in violation of Massachusetts law,” said Hillary Schwab of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs.

The suit comes on the heels of similar action taken by drivers in Chicago and regulations for smartphone applications in the car service industry recently proposed by the International Association of Transportation Regulators. Those proposals, released in November, would curtail the use of GPS devices as a substitute for a taxi meter, prohibit drivers without proper licensing from offering rides for pay, and bar car services from charging extra during hours of peak demand. IATR said its intention was to “bring rogue applications into compliance.” The proposals would have to be adopted by local state and city regulators. New York City, meanwhile, has drafted even more stringent regulations.

Boston fleet owners have said that if smart phone applications in the car service industry are to become standard there still must be uniform rules regarding their use.

In the most recent case, a driver for Uber, David Lavitman, of Milton, alleges Uber kept his tips. He said customers are regularly assessed a 20 percent gratuity but that the company retains as much as half that amount. Lavitman’s suit is seeking class action status and says more than 40 drivers in Massachusetts who served customers beginning Dec. 10, 2012 could join the class. Damages could exceed $5 million, according to statements by the company.

Uber is based in San Francisco.

SOURCE  DBMediaStrategies Inc.

DBMediaStrategies Inc.

Web Site: http://www.dbmediastrategies.com

OMFG: Ivory Madison is STILL Holding Herself Out as an Attorney? Check Out Her LinkedIn: “Non-Practicing Lawyer”

Thursday, January 24th, 2013

She hasn’t changed this yet?

Ivory Madison

OK, by the numbers:

1. “Non-Practicing”

Fine.

2. “Lawyer”

Not fine.

Am I missing something here? Is she licensed in Botswana or someplace?

In closing, OMFG.