5

10
15
20
25
/,
\ ..
;

:-
[
2
3
4
(
6
7
( 8
9
(
11
12
{
13
14
"
16
(
17
JA11ES K. HAHN, City Attorney
EDWARD C. FARRELL, Chief Assistant
city Attorney for WATER AND POWER
THOMAS C. BONAVENTURA,
Senior Assistant City Attorney
JOHN HAGGERTY, Assistant City Attorney
EDHARD J. PEREZ, Deputy City Attorney
1800 City Hall East
200 North Main Street
Los Angeles, california 90012
(213) 485-3160
Attorneys for Defendants
IN THE UNITED COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PREFERRED COMl1UNICATIONS,
a California corporation,
INC. ,
)
) NO. 83 5846 C311 (3X)
)
Plaintiff,
) ANSHER TO A['lEtlDED
) COMPLAINT
v.
)
)
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, california,
)
a municipal corporation, and
DE? AE\ T:1 E N T 01:' HATER AND POWER,
)
)
a nunicipal utility,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
18
19
Defendants for an to the anended conplaint
(
deny and allege as follows:
21
1. Defendants have no knowledge or sufficient
22
(
to forn a belief regarding the truth of the allegation contained in
23
1 and therefore deny such allegations.
24
2. Defendants the allegation contained in paragraph
2.
26
3. Defendants adnit that the Department of Hater and
27
Power ("!)',;?") is a depart::'.ent of defendant City and that Dil? is
28
- 1
CA 14 b
5
10
15
20
25
r
t
(
'(
"
2
3
4
,
1
6
7
(
S
9
r
I..
11
12
13
{
"-
14
16
(
17
18
19
(
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
authorized by Los Angeles City Charter Section 220(5) to sue and be
sued independently.
Defendants deny each and every o:her
allegation contained in paragraph 3.
4. Defendants deny that the claims herein arise under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 and 2) or
the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26 or Sections and
16). Moreover, this Court previously dismissed all allegations
with regard to the anti-trust and the Circui: Court of
Appeals affirmed the Court's as plain:i:: has
not appealed the affirmation of the the antitrust claims
and any concomitant allegations are no longer legally viahle, are
irrelevant, and not a part of this proceeding.
Defendants further deny that the pendent State
arise under Conmon Law, statutes or the constitution of the State
of California and deny that this court has ancillary or pendent
jurisdiction over the plantiffs alleged state causes of action.
Moreover, said claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave
to refile in the state courts. That was not appealed by
the plaintif: and, therefore, the alleged state claims are
irrelevant and not a part of this proceeding.
5. Defendants deny that they have committed in :he past
or are now committing any violations of law and deny that plaintiff
has suffered or is suffering any injury.
6. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in
paragraph 6 and further defendants allege that cable television is
a distinct for;n of COiiHTlunication and has no of
constitutional significance with that of the print media.
- ')
5
10
15
20
25
r
;
\ ,
(
(,
7. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in
2
paragraph 7 and further allege that cable television is a natural
3
and that there is physical space on utility poles
4
and in utility ducts for all cable who wish to construct
(
a cable television system.
6
8. Defendants admit that cable conpanies dissen:nace
7
programs via electronic signals from a central location
(
8
cables to the television sets of subscribers. However, defendants
9 allege that said programming is predominantly a retransmission of
programs produced by others brought in from distant pOints and that
(
11
virtually no programming is orig:nated by or is the creation of the
12
cable operators. Defendants have no knowledge or information
13
sufficient to or deny the remainder of the allegations
(
14
contained in paragraph 8 and therefore deny such allegations.
/
9. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in
16
paragraph 9. Defendants further allege that plaintiff had an equal
(
17
opportunity to participate in the franchise process and consciously
18
refused to do so. Moreover, plaintiff has never demonstrated to
19
defendants or made any effort to that it is capable of
performing or that it ever intended to perform any of the cable
21
services asserted in paragraph 9 or aoide by any of defendants
22
rules or regulations.
23
10. Defendants have no knowledge or information
24
sufficient to forn a belief regarding the truth of the
contained in paragraph 10 and therefore deny such allegations.
26
11. Defendants have no knowledge or infornation
27
SUfficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the allegations
28
. contained in paragraph 11 and therefore deny such allegatlons.
('
12. Defendants deny that plaintiff properly to
obtain requisite licenses, or franchises to operate a ca8le
3 television business in the City of Los Angeles. Defendants have no
.; I knowled or sufficient to a belief regarding the
5 truth of the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 12 and
6 therefore deny such allegations.
7
13. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
8 in paragraph 13.
9 14. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
10 in paragraph 14.
11
15. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
12 in paragraph 15.
13
16. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
F
\.
14
in paragraph 16.
15 17. Defendants denv ane eve:v allegation contained
I
16 ,in paragraph 17.
17
18. Defendants deny each and every allegation regarding
18
the First and Second for relief
contained in ""'a"agrao' s 18
- l:-'''' n
19 through 34. Said claims have been with prejudice and
20 said dismissal has been affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit
21 Court of Appeals and should be barred froD fUrther litigation.
19. Defendants respond to each paragraph incorporatej
23 into ragraph 35 in the same fashion as defendants have responded
,
24 to each paragraph separately hereinabove.
( 25
20. Defendants deny each and every allegation in
." )
paragraph 36. l 26
27
21. Defendants deny each and every allegation in
,paragraph 37.
I.
5
10
15
20
25
l
r
\
(
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
!
28
22. Defendants deny each and every allegation in
paragraph 38.
23. Defendants deny each and every allegation in
paragraph 39.
24. Defendants deny each and every allegatior. in
paragraph 40.
25. Defendants deny each and every allegation in
paragraph 41.
26. Defendants deny each and every allegation in
paragraph 42.
27. Defendants to each
into paragraph 43 in the same fashion as defendants responded to
each paragraph separately hereinabove.
28. Defendants deny that the state arise under
Common Law, statutes or the Constitution of the State of california
and deny that this Court has ancillary or pendent jurisdiction over
the plaintiff's alleged state causes of action contained in
paragraph 44.
29. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 45.
30. Defendants respond to each paragraph incorporated
into paragraph 46 in the fashion as defendants re onded to
each paragraph separately hereinabove.
31. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 47.
32. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragrapn 48.
(
(
2
(
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
I 26
'-..
27
28
33. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 49.
34. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 50.
35. Defendants respond to each paragraph incorporated in
paragraph 51 in the same manner as defendants have responded to
said paragraphs separately hereinabove.
36. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 52 and allege that plaintiffs are making frivolous and
specious allegations and that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 O.S.C. sections 1961 et seq., does not
- --"
apply to defendants.
37. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 53.
38. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 54.
39. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 55.
40. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 56.
41. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 57.
42. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 58.
43. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 59.
44. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in paragraph 60.
45. Defendants deny each and every allegation concained
2
in paragraph 61.
3
46. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
4
.in paragraph 62.
5
47. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
6
in paragraph 63.
7
48. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
8 ,in paragraph 64.
9
49. Defendants deny each and allegation contained
10
In paragraph 65.
(
11
For a First, Separate and Jiscinc: Je:ense to the a8ended
12
conplaint defendants allege:
13
50. The a8ended c08plaint fails to state a clai8 upon
14
which relief Qay be granted against defendants In that the
15
restriction of access for cable television is because
16
cable television is a natural monopoly and also because of the
17 limited space on utility poles and in utility ducts.
18
For a Second, Separate and Jistinc: Defense to the amended
19 cOQplaint defendants allege:
20
51. The court lacks jurisdiction because this action does
21 not arise under the First to the united States
l 22 Constitution in that there does not exist a First Anend8ent right
. to build a caDle television sys:en.
For a _ ird, Separate and D1Stinct Defense to the amended
,
L
25
complaint defendants allege: ,
26
i 52. The amended cOQplaint fails to state a claiQ upon
I
27
IwhiCh relief may be granted against defendants in that RICO, 18
28
i U.S.C. Section 1961 et sea., was intended to stop racketeers fron
i --
7
24
5
10
15
20
25
infiltrating legitimate businesses and not intended for asainst
2
governmental agencies regulating cable television francnising.
3
For a Fourth, Separate and Distinct Defense to the amended
4
complaint defendants allege:
53. The amended complaint fails to state a
6
which relief may be granted against defendants in that the amended
7
complaint fails to allege the requisite predicate faces \vhich
8
demonstrate violations of the KICO statutes.
9
For a First, Separate and Distinct Affirmative Defense to
the amended complaint, defendants allege:
11
54. That with regard to the issue of the
12
claims, the plaintiff is barred by res judicata and collateral
13
estoppel inasmuch as the claim was dismissed with preJudice by this
14
court and said dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
For a Second, Separate and Distinct Affirmative Defense to
16

the amended complaint defendants allege:
r

17
the plaintiff is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel
55. That with regard to the alleged pendent state claims,
18
(
19
inasmuch as the pendent claims were dismissed without prejudice by
this court to be refiled in the State courts. Said dismissal was
21
not appealed by the plaintiff and thus the dismissal is a final
22
as to the state
23
For a Third, Se rate and Distinct Affirmative Defense to
24
the amended complaint defendants allege:
56. That plaintiff waived any and all right to claim
l
26
a violation of law or suffered injury because plaintiff refused to
27
properly seek a franchise from defendants.
28
i!
'I - Q
5
10
15
20
25
.'
"
r
('
2
(
3
4
...
6
7
(
8
9
11
12
13
14

16
{
17
18
19
(
21
(
22
23
24
26
'l
28
For a Fourth, and to
the amended conplaint defendant alleses:
57. Defendants deny that the RICO statutes, IS U.S.C.
section 1961 apply but even that they do,
plaintiff has failed to file its the required by
the proper Statute of and is therefore barred
seeking any remedy thereunder.
Defendants therefore denies that lS entitled to
the relief prayed for in the or to the
complaint or any part thereof, or to any relief asainst defendants,
and defendants pray that the and to
be dismissed with costs and attorney fees to defendants.
r
DATED: v

Respectfully
K. HAHN, City Attorney
C. Chief Assistant
city Attorney for WATER AND POWER
C. BONAVENTURA,
Senior Assistant City Attorney
JOHH H;l.GGSR:'Y I
Assistant City Attorney
ED'.{ARD J. PERE Z ,
Deputy City Attorney
( / ;J
(;/ - , -, /. "7 i /. '"
3y"c cC. ,.'-' r-- . /"--
:: J \i r. iD..... J. ? :: R E ::; ..:J
Deputy City Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants,
CI:'Y OF LOS ANGELES ALlD
OF l'IATER AND pm-lER
9