The following are S.F. City Attorney news releases in reverse-chronological order. For more information, contact the Community and Media Relations Office at +1 (415) 554-4662 or cityattorney@sfcityatty.org.
Lawsuit by San Francisco and Santa Clara County forces State to cover inpatient psychiatric care for youths in custody, end cost-shifting to local governments
Lawyers for locally owned utilities challenging proposed amendment cite public admission that measure intends to ‘greatly diminish’ voting, rather than encourage it
SAN FRANCISCO (April 15, 2010)—City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed a civil lawsuit that seeks tough, enforceable injunctions and potentially substantial penalties and costs against the owners and operators of Club Suede, a notorious Fisherman’s Wharf establishment that was the site of a fatal shooting in the early hours of Feb. 7. The complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court this morning names Hanson Wong and Taliesin Entertainment Group as defendants, and details a pattern of nuisance and unlawful conduct by the defiant club operators dating as far back as 2007.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera is suing for tough, enforceable injunctions and potentially substantial penalties and costs against the owners and operators of Club Suede, a notorious Fisherman’s Wharf establishment that was the site of a fatal shooting in the early hours of Feb. 7, 2010. The original complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court on April 15, 2010 details a pattern of nuisance and unlawful conduct by the defiant club operators dating as far back as 2007. Herrera is additionally seeking permanent closure of the establishment to ensure that Club Suede’s owners don’t reopen it.
Prop 16 challenge presskit, which includes the verified petition for Modesto Irrigation District et al. v. Bowen (March 18, 2010).
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (March 18, 2010) — A coalition of locally-owned public utilities from throughout California today filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court to disqualify Proposition 16 from the June 8 statewide ballot for being false and misleading, and for concealing its true nature and purpose from voters. Proposition 16 is PG&E’s attempt to lock in its monopoly in its existing territories. Even though PG&E spent millions of dollars to qualify the initiative and has committed to spending tens of millions more on the Proposition 16 campaign, the lawsuit points out that PG&E carefully omitted any mention of its name in the measure, and concealed that the true nature, purpose and effect of the initiative would be to protect PG&E from competition from public providers of electric service.
