• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
LA Resume
 

LA Resume

on

  • 520 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
520
Views on SlideShare
520
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    LA Resume LA Resume Document Transcript

    • Louis Anthes 4307 E. 4th St., Unit 7 Long Beach, CA 90814 louis.anthes@gmail.com (562) 912-2221 ________________________ Career Highlights ________________________• Immigrants and Lawyers, 1870-1940: A Cultural History (New York: LFB Scholarly Press, 2003)• Prepared pre-litigation and litigation strategies for clients, including filing answer, cross-complaint, motion for summary judgment, motion to compel discovery• Represented clients at pre-trial hearings, depositions, and mediation• Passed the California Bar Exam on my first attempt, eight years following graduation from law school• Developed a specialists knowledge of Californias medical marijuana laws• Published author appearing in several scholarly journals, websites, magazines and newspapers, and fiction anthologies – with a focus on the history and politics of immigration law, the U.S. legal system, the legal profession and LGBT culture• Relocated to France by securing employment, immigration visa, and housing, while actively maintaining membership in Paris ActUp, 2001-2003• Financed three-month stay in India, which included managing the musical career of American musician• Expert public speaking skills developed in graduate education and applied in classrooms, volunteer organizations, and local government public hearings_____________________ Relevant Employment Experience ____________________• Law Offices of Louis Anthes, Los Angeles, CA, November 2009 – Present• California Court of Appeal, Santa Ana, CA, Court Extern, January 2009 – June 2009• University Preparatory Charter Academy, Oakland, CA, Teacher of Government and Economics, October 2006 – March 2007• Vogel & Vogel, Paris, France, Legal Translator (French to English), January 2003 – March 2003• Clemson University, Clemson, SC, Assistant Professor of United States History, August 2000 – August 2001• Graham & James LLP, New York, NY, Summer Associate, June 1999 – August 1999• Wasserstein Perella, LLC, New York, NY and Chicago, IL, Support Staff Services, January 1991— September 1995 ________________________ Education ________________________• Juris Doctor, New York University School of Law, New York, NY, 2000• Doctor of Philosophy in United States History, New York University School of Arts and Humanities, New York, NY, 2000• Master of Arts in the Social Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1991• Bachelor of Arts, Politics, Economics, Rhetoric and Law, The University of Chicago, IL, 1990
    • 1 LOUIS ANTHES, ESQ. (CSB # 263059) 2 Email: Louis.Anthes@gmail.com 3 4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7 Long Beach, CA 90813 4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166 5 Attorneys for Defendant / Cross - Complainant 6 JACOB ILOULIAN 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS 9 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC08763010 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit ) mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler11 ) Plaintiffs, )12 ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION13 v. ) FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL14 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, )15 Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property ) Hearing:16 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as ) Date: June 11, 2010 DOES 1 through 25, inclusive ) Time: 9:00 a.m.17 ) Dept: Y Defendants ) Place: Los Angeles County Superior Court18 ) Northwest District19 JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, ) 6230 Sylmar Avenue ) Van Nuys, CA 9140120 Cross-Complainant, ) v. )21 ) Supporting Document:22 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) 1) Memorandum of Points & Authorities in ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit ) Support of Partial Summary Judgment;23 mutual benefit corporation, All Person ) 2) Separate Statement of Undisputed Material24 Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable ) Facts; Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the ) 3) Declaration in Support of Motion;25 Real Property described herein adverse to ) 4) Proposed Order and Judgment Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25, )26 ) Cross-Defendants. )27 ____________________________________ )28 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION - 1-
    • 1 TO PLAINTIFFS AND EACH ONE OF THEM, AND TO THEIR 2 3 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 11, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., and in 5 Department Y of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Northwest District, Unlimited Civil, 6 located at 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys, California, 91401, Defendant will make a motion for 7 partial summary judgment or, in the alternative, partial summary adjudication, on Plaintiffs Fifth 8 9 Cause of Action set forth in the First Amended Complaint. This motion is made pursuant to10 Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(c), on the grounds that there is no triable issue as to any11 material fact and Defendant is entitled to judgment thereon, in its favor, as a matter of law. This12 motion is based upon the supporting documents, and all pleadings and papers filed in this action.13 ISSUES:14 Issue One: Plaintiffs have not claimed and may not claim any possessory interest in any15 trees formerly located on that parcel of real estate in Los Angeles County which is identified by16 APN: 2044-026-049 (“Subject Property”).17 Issue Two: Defendant remains the current titleholder of the Subject Property, and may18 make lawful improvements to his property, subject to all laws and regulations.19 Issue Three: Regarding former trees exclusively on Defendants property, Plaintiffs are2021 not entitled to receive any damage award regarding such trees as a matter of law, set forth in22 California Civil Code Sec. 3346(a), as alleged in Plaintiffs Fifth Cause of Action in its First-23 Amended Complaint.2425 Date:_________________ Louis Anthes, Esq.2627 By:28 Louis Anthes NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION - 2-
    • 1 LOUIS ANTHES, ESQ. (CSB # 263059) 2 Email: Louis.Anthes@gmail.com 3 4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7 Long Beach, CA 90813 4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166 5 Attorneys for Defendant / Cross - Complainant 6 JACOB ILOULIAN 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS 9 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC08763010 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit ) mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler11 ) Plaintiffs, )12 ) DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF13 v. ) POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT ) OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY14 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) JUDGMENT OR, IN THE Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, ) ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY15 Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property ) ADJUDICATION16 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as ) DOES 1 through 25, inclusive )17 ) Hearing: Defendants ) Date: June 11, 201018 ) Time: 9:00 a.m.19 JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, ) Dept: Y ) Place: Los Angeles County Superior Court20 Cross-Complainant, ) Northwest District v. ) 6230 Sylmar Avenue21 ) Van Nuys, CA 9140122 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit )23 mutual benefit corporation, All Person )24 Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable ) Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the )25 Real Property described herein adverse to ) Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25 , )26 ) Cross-Defendants. )27 ____________________________________ )28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1
    • 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Partial summary judgment in Defendants favor is appropriate on Plaintiffs claim 3 for damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3346(a) (“CC Sec. 3346(a)”) as set forth 4 in the Fifth Cause of Action of Plaintiffs‟ First Amended Complaint. CC Sec. 3346(a) clearly 5 6 states that, under the Code, a claimant for damages to trees must be the owner of the land upon 7 which the trees are attached. Prior to filing the Fifth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs have not only 8 never claimed any possessory rights, much less title, to either that parcel of real estate in Los 9 Angeles County which is identified by APN: 2044-026-049 (“Subject Property”) or any trees10 attached to the Subject Property, but also Plaintiffs have affirmatively denied making such11 claims to possessory rights to the Subject Property. As the Plaintiffs have not made, and are1213 unable to make, a single possessory claim, upon which any facts emerging from discovery would14 have to be strictly related to establish the elements necessary to supporting Plaintiffs‟ Fifth Cause15 of Action for damages pursuant to CC Sec. 3346(a), Defendant has met the burden of showing16 that Plaintiffs‟ Fifth Cause of Action has no merit. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(p)(2)17 (“CCP 437c(p)(2)”).181920 STATEMENT OF FACTS21 JACOB ILOULIAN, Defendant, is the current title holder of that parcel of real22 estate which is located in Los Angeles County and which is identified by APN: 2044-026-04923 (the “Subject Property”).2425 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant recently became the title holder26 of the Subject Property having purchased the same at a County Tax Auction.2728 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2
    • 1 Plaintiffs have denied that it claims any possessory interest in the Subject 2 Property to which Defendant holds title. 3 4 LEGAL DISCUSSION A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication has met her 5 burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if she also has shown that one or more 6 7 elements of the cause of action cannot be established. CCP Sec. 437c(p)(2). In its Fifth Cause 8 of Action, (“Injury to Trees,” ¶4), Plaintiffs allege Defendant is responsible for payment of 9 damages “in accordance with provisions of California Civil Code Sec. 3346.” CC Sec. 3346(a)10 reads, in pertinent part:11 “For wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land1213 of another, or removal thereof, the measure of damages is three14 times such sum as would compensate for the actual detriment...”15 Plaintiffs boldly and broadly assert, “based on the various easements, Plaintiffs had the right to16 exclusive possess [sic] and use of the Subject Property” (PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF1718 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR19 LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, Part I, ¶2, ll. 16-18), and upon that sole20 assertion, Plaintiffs allege damages under CC Sec. 3346(a). This law requires that the claimant21 establish that the alleged tree injuries caused by Defendant were perpetrated “upon the land of22 another,” and in this case the word, “another,” as it appears in the statute would apply to the23 “Plaintiffs.” To invoke the remedies afforded by CC Sec. 3346(a), Plaintiffs must show a24 possessory interest in the land upon which the injured trees had been attached. Notwithstanding25 Plaintiffs assertions, Plaintiffs fail to establish this element of their claim under CC Sec. 3346(a).262728 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3
    • 1 A. Easements Create Ristricted Non-Possessory Use Rights 2 Without addressing in this motion the merits of Plaintiffs claims to any easement 3 in their lawsuit, and assuming solely for the sake of this motion that the Plaintiffs may use the 4 property pursuant to a recorded easement, it is a settled matter of California law that easements 5 6 are legally distinguishable from estates in land such as ownership in fee, tenancy in common, 7 joint tenancy, and leaseholds, which are forms of possession of land. (12 Witkin, Summary of 8 Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Real Property, Secs. 9–10, 382, pp. 59– 60, 446–447.) “ „An easement 9 involves primarily the privilege of doing a certain act on, or to the detriment of, anothers10 property.‟ An easement gives a non-possessory and restricted right to a specific use or activity11 upon anothers property, which right must be less than the right of ownership.” (Mehdizadeh v.12 Mincer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1306, quoting Wright v. Best (1942) 19 Cal.2d 368, 381.)13 Thus, “[t]he owner of an easement is not the owner of the property, but merely the possessor of a14 „right to use someones land for a specified purpose … .‟ ” (Cody F. v. Falletti (2001) 9215 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1242, quoting Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. v. Godwin Liv. Trust (9th Cir.1617 1994) 32 F.3d 1364, 1368; see Kazi v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2001) 24 Cal.4th 871,18 881 [An easement “represents a limited privilege to use the land of another … , but does not19 create an interest in the land itself.”].)20 Given the settled law on easements, and assuming merely for the sake of21 argument that Plaintiffs have a recorded easement to protect their limited right to use the22 Defendants property strictly for parking and related maintenance purposes, it necessitates a leap23 in logic – and an unfaithful reading of the law – to assert so broadly and boldly, as have the24 Plaintiffs in their Fifth Cause of Action, “based on the various easements, Plaintiff had the right25 to exclusive possess [sic] and use of the Subject Property.” See esp., Blackmore v. Powell26 (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1593, quoting Otay Water Dist. v. Beckwith (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 10412728 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4
    • 1 [even a recorded easement “incorporating a right of exclusive use” – a claim which case goes 2 further than any facts alleged in this current case – “may fall short of ownership”]. 3 Plaintiffs assertion, offered without elaboration or reasoned explanation, directly 4 contradicts previous Plaintiffs statements denying any claims to any possessory rights to the 5 6 Subject Property. Notably, Plaintiffs previous denial of any claim to any possessory rights in the 7 Subject Property would be the appropriate legal position of any alleged easement holder as 8 towards almost any burdened estate. And for this reason, it should not be too difficult for 9 Plaintiffs to concede why Plaintiffs previous statements denying claims to possession of the10 Subject Property and recognizing the Defendants initial admissions to the same were so easily11 made – they were the more logical legal position to take, as documented in Plaintiffs pleadings12 previously submitted to this court, presumably in good faith and without frivolous intent.13 (DEFENDANTS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS).1415 B. California Civil Code Section 3346(a)1617 CC Section 3346(a) is normally used “to educate blunderers (persons who18 mistake location of boundary lines) and to discourage rogues (persons who ignore boundary19 lines), to protect timber from being cut by others than the owner." See Gould v. Madonna (1970)20 5 Cal.App.3d 404, 408. Quite simply, the law is one of Californias tree-cutting regulations21 encouraging would-be cutters to pay for the costs of determining property boundary lines prior to22 cutting, as Defendant admits to having performed this responsibility. (DECLARATION OF23 JACOB ILOULIAN at paragraph 14). The aim of CC Section 3346(a) was not to empower24 alleged easement-holders encroaching upon the rights of estate-holders taking lawful steps25 towards improving and developing their property. Rather, CC Section 3346(a) primarily26 discourages unlawful tree-cutting in the lumber industry. Drewry v. Welch (1965) 23627 Cal.App.2d 159.28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 5
    • 1 CC Section 3346(a) clearly sets out that statutory recovery for damages to trees is 2 based upon trees injured “upon the land of another.” Defendant has been the undisputed owner 3 of the Subject Property, regarding which Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant 4 recently became its owner having purchased it at a County Tax Auction. As the Plaintiffs has 5 6 denied claims to ownership to the Subject Property, and are unable legally to make any 7 possessory claim thereto, Plaintiffs are unable to establish the necessary element of posessory 8 interest in the Defendants trees, as clearly set forth in CC Section 3346(a). 910 GROUNDS FOR GRANTING MOTION11 Where moving party has met its initial burden, the party opposing a summary12 judgment must present admissible evidence showing a triable fact issue. FSR Brokerage, Inc., v.13 Superior Court (Blanco) (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 69, 73-74. Mere claims and theories are14 insufficient to meet this burden. See, e.g., Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th15 201. It is respectfully submitted that Plaintiffs will not be able to meet their burden in opposing1617 summary judgment.18 The issues raised by the motion are limited to the pleadings: issues raised for the19 first time by an opposing declaration cannot be considered in ruling on the motion; otherwise, the20 moving party would never obtain a summary judgment as that party would not have the ability to21 prepare a motion because of the need to meet the burden of proof on speculative issues not raised22 by the pleadings. Cobian v. Ordonez (1980) 103 C.A. 3d Supp. 22, 28, 163 Cal. Rptr. 126.2324 CONCLUSION25 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully submits that its motion is26 meritorious and thereon urges it be granted.2728 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 6
    • 1 Date:_________________ Louis Anthes, Esq. 2 3 By: 4 Louis Anthes 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425262728 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 7
    • 1 LOUIS ANTHES, ESQ. (CSB # 263059) 2 Email: Louis.Anthes@gmail.com 4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7 3 Long Beach, CA 90813 4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166 5 Attorneys for Defendant / Cross - Complainant JACOB ILOULIAN 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS 8 9 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC087630 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit )10 mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler )11 Plaintiffs, ) ) DEFENDANTS SEPARATE STATEMENT12 v. ) OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN ) SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, ) ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY14 ADJUDICATION Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property )15 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as ) DOES 1 through 25, inclusive )16 ) Defendants )17 ) JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, )18 ) Cross-Complainant, )19 v. )20 ) VENTURA WEST OWNERS )21 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit ) mutual benefit corporation, All Person )22 Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable ) Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the )23 ) Real Property described herein adverse to )24 Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25 , )25 Cross-Defendants. ) ____________________________________ )262728 PLAINTIFF‟S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION -1-
    • 1 Facts Evidence 2 FACT 1: COMPLAINT, JACOB ILOULIAN (“Iloulian”) is the current Page 2, Paragraph 2, Lines 1 - 3. 3 owner of that parcel of real estate which is 4 located in Los Angeles County and which is identified by APN: 2044-026-049 (the 5 “Subject Property”). 6 FACT 2: COMPLAINT, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that Page 3, Paragraph 8, Lines 10 – 12. 7 basis alleges, that Iloulian recently became the owner of the Subject Property having 8 purchased the same at a County Tax Auction. 9 FACT 3: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT,10 Plaintiff denies that it claims an ownership Page 5, Paragraph 32, Lines 25-28; interest in the Subject Property. Page 8, Paragraph 56, Lines 25-26.11 FACT 4: DECLARATION OF JOHN JACQUES,12 Defendant Jacob Iloulian, purchased the Page 2, paragraph 3, Lines 11-13. Subject Property at a County Tax Lien Sale13 for approximately $50,000.141516 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Defendant is entitled to judgment under the Plaintiffs First- Amended Complaint.1718 Date:_________________ Louis Anthes, Esq.192021 By: Louis Anthes22232425262728 PLAINTIFF‟S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION -2-
    • 1 LOUIS ANTHES, ESQ. (CSB # 263059) 2 Email: Louis.Anthes@gmail.com 4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7 3 Long Beach, CA 90813 4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166 5 Attorneys for Defendant / Cross - Complainant JACOB ILOULIAN 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS 8 9 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC087630 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit )10 mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler )11 Plaintiffs, ) ) DECLARATION OF JACOB ILOULIAN12 v. ) OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT OR, IN THE13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION14 Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, ) Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property )15 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as ) DOES 1 through 25, inclusive )16 ) Defendants )17 ) JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, )18 ) Cross-Complainant, )19 v. )20 ) VENTURA WEST OWNERS )21 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit ) mutual benefit corporation, All Person )22 Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable ) Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the )23 ) Real Property described herein adverse to )24 Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25 , )25 Cross-Defendants. ) ____________________________________ )2627 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT28 OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -1-
    • 1 I, JACOB ILOULIAN, declare: 2 I am the defendant and the cross-complainant in the above entitled action. 3 I am also the current owner of the vacant land on Ventura Blvd. in Woodland 4 Hills which is known as Los Angeles County APN: 2044-026-049 (“Subject 5 Property” herein) and I am familiar with the facts set forth in this declaration and 6 have personal knowledge thereof. 7 8 1. I personally attended a public auction which was held by the Los Angeles 9 County Tax Collector on February 9, 2009.10 2. At that auction, I was the winning bidder for “Item Number 65,” which was11 the Subject Property.12 3. My winning bid amount was $50,000 (fifty thousand dollars).13 4. On April 3, 2009, The County of Los Angeles Department of Treasurer and14 Tax Collector recorded a Tax Deed to Purchaser of Tax-Defaulted Property as instrument15 number 20090481576 with the county recorder. A true and accurate copy of the recorded deed is16 attached to this Declaration as Exhibit “A.”17 5. The recorded deed conveyed the Subject Property to me.18 6. It is currently undisputed by all parties in this litigation that I am the current19 owner of the Subject Property.20 7. The Subject Property has two distinct sections: one section is currently being2122 used as a parking space for six cars (“Parking Section”); the other section is a grassy area23 between the parking space and Ventura Boulevard (“Grassy Section”). I am the owner of both24 sections.25 8. The Grassy Section of my Subject Property is distinctively bordered by two26 walls, which were erected prior to my acquisition of title to the Subject Property and which any27 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT28 OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -2-
    • 1 reasonably prudent person can recognize as the boundaries of my Subject Property with respect 2 to the neighboring properties. One wall borders the Eastern side of the property and the other 3 wall borders the Western side of the property. The description of the two bordering walls are as 4 follows: 5 a. Easterly border of the Grassy Section features brick peach-colored wall, 6 approximately five (5) feet in height, separating the Subject Property from the 7 neighboring property located at 23271 Ventura Blvd. (See Exhibit “B”). I am 8 informed and believe the owners of 23271 Ventura Blvd are not a party to this 9 litigation.10 b. Westerly border of the Grassy Section of Subject Property is marked by a11 brick white-colored wall, approximately three (3) feet in height, separating the12 Subject Property from the public alley. (See Exhibit “C”)1314 9. Entirely existing within the Grassy Section of the Subject Property were four15 (4) eucalyptous trees, prior to my acquisition of title to the Subject Property.16 10. These trees had been located on the Subject Property exclusively owned by17 me.18 11. The trunks of the trees remain completely and exclusively within the19 distinctively bordered Grassy Section of my Subject Property.20 12. To my belief and knowledge, no part of the tree trunks exist on any land2122 belonging to another.23 13. The trunks of the trees have not yet been removed from the Subject Property.24 Exhibit “D” shows the location of the tree trunks revealed by a photograph of the Grassy25 Section, taken in March of 2010. These photographs unambiguously depict the location of the26 tree trunks within the Grassy Section of my Subject Property.27 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT28 OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -3-
    • 1 14. Aware that California Civil Code Section 3346(a) requires, under threat of 2 punitive damages owed to an injured property owner, that tree-cutting activity must operate 3 within the legal boundaries permitting tree-cutting activity, I was, and remain, under the 4 impression that these trees were my property as they were attached to the Grassy Section of the 5 Subject Property upon my acquisition of the same. 6 15. Since I am the undisputed property owner of the Subject Property, including 7 the trees which were attached thereto, the trees which I removed as waste for the purpose of 8 making lawful improvements to my estate were never located on the land of another. 9 16. Declarant herein makes this declaration for and on behalf of Defendant and10 Cross-Complainant. The facts contained herein are within the personal and firsthand knowledge11 of the declarant who, if sworn as a witness, can competently and completely testify thereto.12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the13 foregoing is true and correct.1415 Date: ______________________________16 JACOB ILOULIAN1718192021222324252627 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT28 OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -4-
    • 1 LOUIS ANTHES, ESQ. (CSB # 263059) 2 Email: Louis.Anthes@gmail.com 4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7 3 Long Beach, CA 90813 4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166 5 Attorneys for Defendant / Cross - Complainant JACOB ILOULIAN 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS 8 9 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC087630 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit )10 mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler )11 Plaintiffs, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF COSTS FOR12 v. ) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT OR, IN THE13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION14 Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, ) Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property )15 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as ) DOES 1 through 25, inclusive )16 ) Defendants )17 ) JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, )18 ) Cross-Complainant, )19 v. )20 ) VENTURA WEST OWNERS )21 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit ) mutual benefit corporation, All Person )22 Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable ) Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the )23 ) Real Property described herein adverse to )24 Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25 , )25 Cross-Defendants. ) ____________________________________ )2627 I, LOUIS ANTHES, state:28 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS -1-
    • 1 I am the attorney for the party who claims the below-described costs. To the best 2 of my knowledge and belief, the following items of costs are correct and have been necessarily 3 incurred in filing this motion: 4 5 6 7 1. Clerks filing fees…………………………$200.00 8 2. Legal Research…………………………...$200.00 9 3. Attorneys Fees……………………..…… $500.0010 TOTAL……………………………………………$900.001112 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the13 foregoing is true and correct.1415 Date:_________________1617 Louis Anthes1819202122232425262728 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS -2-
    • 1 LOUIS ANTHES, ESQ. (CSB # 263059) 2 Email: Louis.Anthes@gmail.com 4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7 3 Long Beach, CA 90813 4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166 5 Attorneys for Defendant / Cross - Complainant JACOB ILOULIAN 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS 8 9 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC087630 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit )10 mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler )11 Plaintiffs, ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR12 v. ) PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT )13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, )14 Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, ) Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property )15 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as ) DOES 1 through 25, inclusive )16 ) Defendants )17 ) JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, )18 ) Cross-Complainant, )19 v. )20 ) VENTURA WEST OWNERS )21 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit ) mutual benefit corporation, All Person )22 Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable ) Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the )23 ) Real Property described herein adverse to )24 Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25 , )25 Cross-Defendants. ) ____________________________________ )262728 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -
    • 1 The motion of Defendant, JACOB ILOULIAN for an Order granting Summary 2 Judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, was heard by the Court on June 11, 2010. 3 On consideration of all the evidence set forth in the papers submitted, and the inferences 4 reasonably deducible therefrom, the Court determines that there is no triable issue as to any 5 material fact and that Defendant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law. 6 7 Date: ____________________ ________________________________ HONORABLE RICHARD A. ADLER 8 910111213141516171819202122232425262728 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -
    • 1 LOUIS ANTHES, ESQ. (CSB # 263059) 2 Email: Louis.Anthes@gmail.com 4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7 3 Long Beach, CA 90813 4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166 5 Attorneys for Defendant / Cross - Complainant JACOB ILOULIAN 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS 8 9 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC087630 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit )10 mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler )11 Plaintiffs, ) ) [proposed] JUDGMENT12 v. ) )13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, )14 Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, ) Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property )15 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as ) DOES 1 through 25, inclusive )16 ) Defendants )17 ) JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, )18 ) Cross-Complainant, )19 v. )20 ) VENTURA WEST OWNERS )21 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit ) mutual benefit corporation, All Person )22 Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable ) Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the )23 ) Real Property described herein adverse to )24 Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25 , )25 Cross-Defendants. ) ____________________________________ )262728 [proposed] JUDGMENT -
    • 1 On June 11, 2010 the Court granted the motion of Defendant made pursuant to 2 Civil Procedure Section 437C on the grounds that there is no triable issue as to any material fact 3 and that Defendant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law. The Court further ordered the 4 Judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against the Defendants. In accordance with that Order, 5 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Judgment is 7 entered in favor of Defendant, JACOB ILOULIAN and against Plaintiffs, VENTURA WEST 8 OWNERS ASSOCIATION. Judgment on the motion is entered for the following amounts: 9 CLERKS FILING FEES $ 200.0010 LEGAL RESEARCH $ 200.0011 ATTORNEYS FEES $ 500.0012 TOTAL $ 900.00131415 Date: ____________________ ________________________________ HONORABLE RICHARD A. ADLER16171819202122232425262728 [proposed] JUDGMENT -
    • 1 LOUIS ANTHES, ESQ. (CSB # 263059) 2 Email: Louis.Anthes@gmail.com 4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7 3 Long Beach, CA 90813 4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166 5 Attorneys for Defendant / Cross - Complainant JACOB ILOULIAN 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS 8 9 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC087630 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit )10 mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler )11 Plaintiffs, ) PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL OF ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION12 v. ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN ) THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) ADJUDICATION; PLAINTIFF’S14 Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF15 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as ) MOTION; DECLARATION OF SAM DOES 1 through 25, inclusive ) MADHAV IN SUPPORT OF MOTION16 ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; Defendants ) PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT17 ) OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, ) OF THE MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF18 ) COSTS; ORDER GRANTING MOTION Cross-Complainant, ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;19 v. ) [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT20 ) VENTURA WEST OWNERS )21 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit ) mutual benefit corporation, All Person )22 Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable ) Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the )23 ) Real Property described herein adverse to )24 Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25 , )25 Cross-Defendants. ) ____________________________________ )262728 Proof of Service -
    • 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )Case Name: Ventura West v. Jacob Iloulian COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )Case#: LC087630 3 I, , declare that: 4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 20750 Ventura Blvd., Suite 100, Woodland Hills, California 5 91364. . 6 On __________________, I served the NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; PLAINTIFF’S 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; DECLARATION OF SAM MADHAV IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE 8 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT on 9 the interested parties in this action by placing true and correct copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid in the United States Mail at __________________, California, addressed as follows:10 Matt Grode – 1880 Century Park East, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-162111 [X] (By Mail [Federal]) I placed such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at ____________________, California.12 [] (By Mail [State]) I am readily familiar with Prober & Raphael‟s practice for the collection and processing of13 correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; it is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same date in the ordinary course of business at the business address shown above; I am aware that on14 motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing contained in this declaration.15 [] (Overnight delivery) placing true and correct copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), for overnight16 delivery at Woodland Hills, California, delivered to a driver authorized by Airborne Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that17 person(s) on any document filed in the case and served on the party making service or at that party‟s(s‟) place of residence.18 [] (By Facsimile) I further declare the above-referenced documents were transmitted to the following parties on by facsimile transmission as follows:19 The transmissions were reported as complete and without error.20 [] (Personal service) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s).21 [x] Executed on __________________ at Woodland Hills, California.22 [x] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.23 [] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar at whose direction this service was made.24 __________________________________25262728 Proof of Service -
    • ENCLOSURE B"California Medical Marijuana 101”While over a dozen states, and the District of Columbia, have enacted laws allowing qualifiedpatients to claim limited immunity from criminal prosecution for enjoying the use of medicinalcannabis, California’s laws protecting patients’ rights to the same are, arguably, the mostscrutinized by activists, police and patients. Any attorney seeking to understand these laws tocounsel clients should acquaint themselves with the legal basics.Three areas of law must be considered: Federal and State Criminal Law California Association Law Local GovernmentThe State of California’s Department of Justice, through the office of Attorney General, hasissued“Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use”(“Guidelines”), as required by state law (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.81(d)). Though twoyears old, these guidelines remain an excellent starting point for practitioners seekinginformation on both the criminal and business components of this legal field.CRIMINAL LAWFederal LawAdopted during the Nixon Administration, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) established afederal regulatory system designed to combat recreational drug abuse. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 801, etseq.) Notwithstanding the recommendation by the American Medical Association (AMA) tosupport further medical research of cannabis (American Medical Association Council on Scienceand Public Health, “Board of Trustees and Council Reports – Recommendations,” November 10,2009), the CSA continues to classify marijuana in the same class as heroin or LSD – allSchedule-I drugs with “no currently accepted medical use.” (21 U.S.C. Sec. 812(b)(1).)Accordingly, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana remains a federal criminaloffense, despite current science. (Id. at Secs. 841(a)(1), 844(a).) Therefore, a licensed doctormay not “prescribe” marijuana in any state or territory of the United States, although the samedoctor may lawfully “recommend” marijuana – either verbally or in writing – under state law(Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.5(d); Conant v. Walters (9th Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 629, 632).It must be noted, briefly, that the United States Department of Justice has issued formalguidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of medicalmarijuana: “As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources inyour States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existingstate laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” (Memorandum for Selected United StatesAttorneys, David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, October 19, 2009.)Though the United States Supreme Court has held that Congress has constitutional authority to
    • completely regulate all private activity related to cannabis production, distribution, use and soforth (Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)), Congress has provided that states are free toregulate in the area of controlled substances, including marijuana, provided that state law doesnot positively conflict with the CSA. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 903.). California’s medical marijuana lawshave survived court challenge on the ground that they are preempted by the CSA. (County of SanDiego v. San Diego NORML (Cal.Rptr.3d 2008) WL 2930117.)Compassionate Use Act (CUA)One cannot understand the significance of California’s cannabis laws, without firstunderstanding the role of civil disobedience on this issue. On November 5, 1996, Californiavoters passed Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), which decriminalized thecultivation and use of marijuana by seriously ill individuals upon a physician’s recommendation.(Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.5.) Passage of the proposition was orchestrated by SanFrancisco healthcare activist, Dennis Peron, who previously opened the Cannabis Buyers’ Clubin that city for the benefit of AIDS/HIV and cancer patients. When police shut down the club forcriminal nuisance, Peron fought back and won, as California voters enacted the first state law,Prop 215, protecting medical marijuana.This new law neither limited quantities of lawful cannabis possession nor the kinds of illnessesfor which patients could seek relief: “cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity,glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.”(Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.5(b)(1)(A) [emphasis added].). And, it protected from criminalsanction the relationship between the patient and “primary caregiver,” defined as the person whohas “consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety” of a patient. Notsurprisingly, many patients have used CUA to set up a “dispensary” as the “primary caregiver”to distribute cannabis to dispensary patrons. An arrangement, however, where “dispensaries thatmerely require patients to complete a form summarily designating the business owner as theirprimary caregiver – and then offering marijuana in exchange for cash ‘donations’ – are likelyunlawful” (Guidelines, IV.C.1.)Indeed, California courts have upheld a narrow reading of the definition of “primary caregiver,”requiring the element of consistent provision for the “housing, health or safety” of a patient.(People v. Mentch (2008) 45 C.4th 274, 85 C.R.3d 480, 195 P.3d 1061.) Such a narrow judicialreading of the statute effectively denies most dispensaries the legal protections of the “primarycaregiver” label.Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP)On January 1, 2004, Senate Bill 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP), became law(Health & Saf. Code, Secs. 11362.7-11362.83.) This new legislation was more encompassing inscope and effect than the CUA. Among the MMP’s provisions, four key areas merit attention.First, the MMP, with certain exceptions, places limits both on the amount of dried marijuana,and the number of living plants, which a patient could lawfully possess. These restrictionscontrasted notably with the CUA’s lack of restrictions. Recently, the California Supreme Courtheld that CUA’s lack of cultivation restrictions controlled on this issue, on the jurisprudential
    • grounds that law enacted through legislation cannot retroactively amend law that was enactedthrough the state proposition process. (People v. Kelly, Cal. 2010, No. S164830).Second, the MMP mandates that all California counties participate in the California Departmentof Public Health program to establish and maintain the registration of patients and caregiversthrough a statewide identification card system. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.71(b).) Thispublic identification system has been augmented by privately-maintained systems. The goal ofboth public and private programs is shared: to help law enforcement officers verify thatcardholders are able to cultivate, possess, and transport certain amounts of marijuana withoutbeing subject to arrest under specific conditions. Medical marijuana identity cards, althoughvoluntary (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.71(f)), do in fact provide legal, limited immunityfrom prosecution and arrest.Third, the MMP prohibits state licensing boards – law, medical, etc. – from discriminatingagainst licensees who seek legal protections offered under the MMP. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec.11362.8.)Fourth, the MMP recognizes a qualified right to patients and caregivers to form medicalmarijuana associations, free of criminal sanction. Specifically, it is California Health & SafetyCode, Sec. 11362.775, which offers dispensaries the most legal protection under state law, andconsequently this subject alone merits further discussion.CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION LAWThere may be some room for maneuver in advising clients what sorts of associational activitiesare lawful, but there can be no argument that current state law consistently prohibits “for-profit”cultivators operating in the medical marijuana field. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.765(a).)Furthermore, lawful associations must be formed strictly among qualified patients andcaregivers. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.775.)When advising clients belonging to patient associations, a lawyer should determine whether theassociation is organized on a “retail” model, where labor is roughly divided into classes amongassociation members: one class basically including consumers; another class includingemployees. This retail model, while familiar and convenient to most people, invites policescrutiny under current law. Better is a business association which operates either: as anorganized cooperative (California Corporate Code, Secs. 12201, 12300); as a non-profit, publicbenefit assocation (California Corporate Code, Secs. 5510-6910); or, as a non-profit, mutualbenefit association (California Corporate Code, Secs. 7710-8910). To mitigate the risk of beingcharged with running a sham retail operation, dispensaries should follow common businesspractices of maintaining security, making appropriate filings to state authorities, and keepingrecords of members donating, in addition to cash, a minimal amount of labor, time and products,to show that patient-members associate democratically. They should also file annual stateincome taxes, or request an exemption prior to filing. (California State Franchise Tax Board,Publication 927.)Of course, medical marijuana sales activity is sanctioned by state law. The MMP explicitlycondones cash transactions between patients and primary caregivers (Health & Saf. Code, Sec.
    • 11362.765(c)), and the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) requires non-profitassociations, including dispensaries, to pay sales tax to California. In February 2007, the BOEissued a “Special Notice” confirming its policy of taxing medical marijuana transactions, as wellas its requirement that businesses engaging in such transactions hold a Seller’s Permit.(http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/medseller2007.pdf.) The BOE explained, “The sale of medicalmarijuana has always been considered taxable. ... Not making a profit does not relieve a seller ofhis or her sales tax liability. However, whether or not you make a profit, like other retailersmaking taxable sales, you can ask your customers to reimburse you for the sales taxes due onyour sales.” (http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/173.pdf.)LOCAL GOVERNMENTOne of the major obstacles in Californias dispensary movement has been local government. InCalifornia, Long Beach City Prosecutor, Tom Reeves, recently advocated for eliminating all cashtransactions at dispensaries (“City Attorney Candidates Clash, Criticize Council,” by PaulEakins, Long Beach Press-Telegram, March, 9, 2010). Operating an association without cashposes enormous logistical difficulties to members, and it effectively denies many patients theirrights under state law.The MMP clearly manifests an attempt at exerting state law over county and local government.First, the MMP identification system imposes affirmative, and elaborate, obligations on allCalifornia counties and it restricts counties’ rights to deny patient applications for government-issued cards (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.71). Second, in the one instance where the MMPspecifically addresses local governments adapting local variations, it permitted variations whichexceed recommended state restrictions on patients (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.77(c); again,MMP possession limits were overturned by People v. Kelly). Otherwise, where the MMPacknowledges the role of local and city governments, it requires them to act consistently withinthe MMP (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.83): “Nothing in this article shall prevent a city orother local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article.”For some courts, however, the right of local governments to limit patients’ rights remains anissue. In City of Claremont v. Kruse, (No. B210084, Cal.App. 2d, Sep. 9, 2009), the Court ofAppeal ruled, in an unpublished decision, that California’s medical marijuana law “does notmandate that municipalities allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate within their citylimits, or to alter the fact that land use has historically been a function of local government undertheir grant of police power.”Looking to the future, if California voters fail to legalize cannabis, it may very well take a thirdround of law-making to ensure that all California patients are able to exercise their rights underthe states medical marijuana laws, with the full cooperation and support of local government
    • ENCLOSURE C HIST 800 — Clemson University Spring Semester 2001 4:45-7:15 T, Holtzendorff 214 Professor Louis Anthes Black Markets in United States History: Theories and PracticesDescription: This graduate seminar examines intersections between markets and crime inUnited States history. The first part of the course begins with some theoretical questions aboutwhat it means to talk about human behavior in terms of markets in property: What does it meanto own something? Why might people trade things they may not want to own, such as gifts, orcannot legally own, such as bogus money or stolen goods? The second part of the course turnsto historical examples of how Americans in the past engaged in social exchanges that weretacitly or explicitly illegal. The most broad aim of the course is to encourage students tointerpret different historical practices without first resorting to contemporary preconceptionsabout crime and property.Assignments: Except for one in-class movie, the assignments for this class include journalarticles, essays, and selected chapters from books, which are supplemented by suggestedreadings (i.e., the "see also" list of readings). Note that during week 12, each student will presentto the class an outline of her or his term paper (discussed below) and receive advice and criticismfrom other students. Assigned readings will be placed on reserve at the library and on theCollaborative Learning Environment (CLE), except for Albert Hirschmans The Passions and theInterests, which should be purchased from the bookstore and Lawrence Wechslers Boggs: AComedy of Values, which should be acquired on ones own.In addition to class participation (25% of final grade), grades will reflect the quality of twowritten assignments. Your first assignment is to write a 2500-word essay due week 9, in thestyle of the New York Review of Books, interpreting the readings – both the required and "seealso" readings – for one of the following weeks: 2, 3, (NOT 4), 5, 6, or 7 (25% of final grade).Your second assignment is to write a 6000-word term paper due week 17 (50% of final grade).You must submit a one-page description of the topic of your term paper at the beginning of classon week 6.The term paper may take one of two forms: you may write a research paper that takes advantageof local source materials, or you may write a paper that reviews a recently-published historybook which is relevant to the course topic but is not listed on the syllabus. If you choose to writea review essay, then you should place the new book in its historiographical and theoreticalcontexts — which will mean reading a number of additional books and articles that are not listedon the syllabus. You may choose to publish your book review. Please see me as early in thesemester as possible to take advantage of this opportunity.
    • Part I: IntroductionWeek 1 Overview and Introductory DiscussionT, 1/16 Linda Austin, "Babies for Sale: Tennessee Childrens Adoption Scandal," Tennessee Historical Quarterly, v. 49 (1990), pp. 91-102 V.S. Naipaul, India: A Million Mutinies Now (1990), pp. 69-75 Alissa Rubin and Aaron Zitner, "Infertility Cases Spur an Illicit Drug Market," Los Angeles Times (September 10, 2000)Part II: Theoretical ConsiderationsWeek 2 The Market of PropertyT, 1/23 Harold Demsetz, "Toward a Theory of Property Rights," American Economic Review (1967) Garret Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons," Science (1968) Margaret Jane Radin, "Justice and the Market Domain," in Markets and Justice, Chapman and Pennock, eds. (1989) Carol Rose, "Women and Property: Gaining and Losing Ground," Virginia Law Review (1992) See Also...: Ronald Coase, The Problem of Social Cost (1960) Erving Goffman, Asylums (1961) Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (1984)Week 3 The Market of Morals and SymbolsT, 1/30 E.P. Thompson, "The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century," Past and Present (1971) Benedict Anderson, "The Origins of National Consciousness" (chp. 3), in Imagined Communities (1983) Kenneth Greenberg, "Gifts, Strangers, Duels, and Humanitarianism" (Chapter 3) in Honor and Slavery (1996) Pierre Bourdieu, "The Economy of Symbolic Goods," in Practical Reason (1998) See Also...: Thorsten Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) Marcel Mauss, The Gift (1954) Robert Ellickson, Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes (1991) Viviana Zelizer, The Social Meaning of Money (1994)
    • Week 4 The Market of CrimeT, 2/6 Joseph Gusfield, "Moral Passage: The Symbolic Process of Public Designation of Deviance," Social Problems (1967) Paul Rock, "Phenominalism and Essentialism in the Sociology of Deviance," Sociology (1973) Stuart Henry, "Trading Networks" (Chapter 2), The Hidden Economy (1978) Lawrence Friedman, "Setting the Price," (Chapter 5) in Crime and Punishment in American History (1993) Ian Taylor, "Crime, Market-Liberalism and The European Idea," in The New European Criminology (1998)Week 5 Market Notions in Western Cultural HistoryT, 2/13 Karl Marx, "The Transformation of Money into Capital" (chapters 4 and 6), in Capital, Volume One (1867) Michel Foucault, "Exchanging" (Chapter 6), in The Order of Things (1966) Joyce Appleby, "Locke, Liberalism, and the Natural Law of Money," in Past and Present (1976) Albert Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests (1977) See Also... Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation (1957) Jean Christophe Agnew, Worlds Apart (1986) Carole Patement, The Sexual Contract (1988) Richard White, The Middle Ground (1991)Week 6 Market Notions in American Cultural HistoryT, 2/20*** ONE-PAGE DESCRIPTION OF TERM PAPER DUE *** John Reid, "Paying for the Elephant: Property Rights and Civil Order on the Overland Trial," Huntington Library Quarterly 37 (1977) William Cronon, "Bounding the Land" (Chapter 4), Changes in the Land (1983) Christopher Clark, "The Consequences of the Market Revolution in the American North," in The Market Revolution in America (1996) William Novak, "Public Economy: The Well-Ordered Market," (Chapter 3) in The Peoples Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (1996) Amy Dru Stanley, "Legends of Contract Freedom," (Chapter 1) in From Bondage to Contract (1998) See Also... Joyce Appleby, Capitalism and a New Social Order (1984) Charles Sellers, Market Revolution (1991) Thomas Bender, ed., The Anti-Slavery Debate (1992)
    • Haskell and Teichgraber, eds., The Culture of the Market (1993)Part III: Historical Practices in the United States, 1800-Recent PastWeek 7 SlaveryT, 2/27 Frederick Douglass, (Chapter XI), Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845) Lawrence McDonnell, "Money Knows No Master: Market Relations and the American Slave Community," in Developing Dixie: Modernization in a Traditional Society, ed. by Moore (1988), pp. 31-44 Judith Schafer, "The Slave Who Absconds … Steals Himself" (Chapter 4), in Slavery, the Civil Law and the Supreme Court in Louisiana (1994) Dylan Penningroth, "Slavery, Freedom and Social Claims to Property among African Americans, 1850-1880," Journal of American History (1997) Walter Johnson, "Acts of Sale" (Chapter 6), in Soul by Soul (1999) See Also... Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men (1970) Thomas Morris, "Police Regulations" (Chapter 16), in Southern Slavery and the Law (1996) Amy Dru Stanley, From Bondage to Contract (1998) David Waldstreicher, "Reading the Runaways: Self-Fashioning, Print Culture, and Confidence in Slavery in the 18th C Mid-Atlantic," William & Mary Quarterly 56 (1999): 243-272.Week 8 CounterfeitingT, 3/6 Judith Benner, "Counterfeits and Their Sources" (chp. 4), in Fraudulent Finance: Counterfeiting and the Confederate States: 1861-1865 (1970) Susan Branson, "Beyond Respectability: The Female World of Love and Crime in Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Philadelphia," Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 25 (1996): 245-264 David Johnson, "The Social World of Counterfeiting" (Chapter 1), Illegal Tender (1995) David Henkin, "Promiscuous Circulation" (Chapter 6), City Reading (1998) See Also... Herman Melville, The Confidence Man and His Masquerade (1857) Karen Halttunen, Confidence Men and Painted Women (1982) John Hann, "Apalachee Counterfeiters in St. Augustine," Florida Historical Quarterly 67 (1988): 52-68 Kathleen Chamberlain, "Capitalism, Counterfeiting, and Literary Representation: The Case of Lizzie Borden," Primary Sources and Original Works 4 (1996): 175-192
    • Week 9 Counterfeiting RevisitedT, 3/13*** BOOK REVIEW DUE *** Haas, Money Man (1992). Documentary film about the life and artwork of J.S.G. Boggs Lawrence Weschler, Boggs: A Comedy of Values (1999)Week 10 Spring Break: 3/19 - 3/23Week 11 Temperance and ProhibitionT, 3/27 Carolene Ware, "Business and Work" (Chapter 3), Greenwich Village (1935) Mary Murphy, "Bootlegging Mothers and Drinking Daughters: Gender and Prohibition in Butte, Montana," American Quarterly 46 (1994) 174-194 George Chauncey, "Pansies on Parade" (Chapter 11), Gay New York (1994) Michael Lerner, "Liquor, Liquor Everywhere" (Chapter 7), in "Dry Manhattan," Ph.D. Dissertation, NYU (1999) See Also... Lewis Erenberg, Steppin Out (1981) Paul Chevingny, Gigs (1991) Richard Hamm, Shaping the Eighteenth Amendment (1995)Week 12 *** PRESENTATION OF OUTLINES ***. No Class Readings.T, 4/3Week 13 Ambulance ChasingT, 4/10 Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U.S. 447 (1978) David Engel, "The Oven-Birds Song," Law and Society Review (1984) Kenneth DeVille, "New York City Attorneys and Ambulance Chasing in the 1920s," The Historian (1997) Louis Anthes, "Streetcorners" (Chapter 4), in "Bohemian Justice," Ph.D. Dissertation, NYU (2000) See Also... Abraham Blumberg, "The Practice of Law as a Confidence Game," Law and Society Review (1967) Jerold Auerbach, UnEqual Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America (1976) Marc Galanter, "Reading the Landscape of Disputes," UCLA Law Review (1983) Ken Dornstein, Accidentally on Purpose, Part One (1996)Week 14 SexualityT, 4/17 Marie Kopp, Birth Control in Practice, Excerpts (1933)
    • Patricia Cline Cohen, "The Brothel Business" (Chapter 6) in The Murder of Helen Jewett (1998) Timothy Gilfoyle, chps. 9, 11, 12 in City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution, and the Commercialization of Sex (1994) Andrea Tone, "Contraceptive Consumers: Gender and the Political Economy of Birth Control in the 1930s," Journal of Social History (March 1996) See Also... Linda Gordon, Womans Body, Womans Right (1976) Judith Walkowitz, Prostitution and Victorian Society (1980) John DEmilio and Estelle Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (1988)Week 15 AbortionT, 4/24 Pauline Bart, "Seizing the Means of Reproduction: An Illegal Feminist Abortion Collective – How and Why It Worked," Qualitative Sociology (1987) Diane Elze, "Underground Abortion Remembered: Part 2," Sojourner: The Womens Forum (1988) Lindsey Van Gelder, "The Jane Collective: Seizing Control," Ms. (1991) Loretta Ross, "African-American Women and Abortion, 1800-1970," Theorizing Black Feminisms (1993) See Also... Clifford Browder, The Wickedest Woman in New York (1988) Richie Solinger, "A Complete Disaster!: Abortion and the Politics of Hospital Abortion Communities, 1950-1970," Feminist Studies (1993) Leslie Reagan, When Abortion Was a Crime (1997)Week 16 *** TERM PAPER DUE ***M., 4/30
    • FOURTH DISTRI T . DIVI SION THREE 6 0 1 WEST SAN TA ANA BLVD . SANTA ANA . CALIFORN IA 927 0 I (7 1 4) S7 1 · 2754 CHAMBERS OF FAX ( 714 ) 57 1 -2755RICH ARD M . AR ONSON ASSOCIATE. JUSTICE June 3, 20 11 Re: Louis Anthes To Whom It May Concern: I enthusiastically recommend, without reservation, Louis Anthes as an attorney capable of performing at the highest standards of the legal profession. Louis is by far the most accomplished and talented attorney who has clerked for me in more than 10 years at the Court of Appeal. Before taking the bar exam, he published a book entitled Lawyers and Immigrants based on his Ph.D. dissertation at N.Y.U., ably demonstrating his skill in assuming and shepherding to success complex projects with real consequences for others. He proved a quick study at the intricacies of appellate practice and, based on his superior analytic and writing skills, I enl isted him to draft summary judicial opinions and research our most challenging issues. His pre-law life experience was invaluable, adding weight to his analysis, which was alway thoughtful and brilliantly expressed. While he impressed everyone in chambers with his intelligence and work ethic, we found even more compelling his generous regard for others and commitment to serve the public and later his clients. He always made time to pitch in on difficult and pressing projects, despite his own responsibilities . When he clerked for me in the spring of2009 , Louis had spent nearly eight years away from direct study of the law, engaged in academic purs uits including Ph.D. coursework, completing his dissertation, and landing a coveted tenure-track research and teaching position in American history. Choosing to have a more active role in haping peoples lives through the practice of law, Louis dusted off his law degree and took on the notoriously challenging California bar exam. To no ones surprise, he passed on his first attempt, a remarkable feat under the circumstances. Unfortunately, he could not have entered the legal market at a more inopportune time. I swore Louis in as a member of the California bar in 2009, which has become known in informed legal circles as the "lost class of 2009" because of, through no fault of their own, the dearth of hiring opportunities plaguing the class . Louis has weathered this setback admirably_
    • To Whom It May Concern -2- June 3,2011(Re: Louis Anthes)courageously starting his own firm, and skillfully representing and protecting his clientsthrough the vicissitudes of practice. I am confident now is his moment to shine as anattorney for any organization fortunate to have him. In sum, I have no doubt Louis will excel in whatever I gal path he embarkson, and I expect his career will be marked by outstanding professional achievement andservice to the community. He will be an excellent lawyer and I cannot recommend himhighly enough. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of fUl1herassistance. Richard M. AronsonRMA:gI