Supreme Court grants review in Ted Rall v. LA Times Case

Jeff Lewis has represented Ted Rall in a case against the LA Times. The Times prevailed at the trial court and obtained a dismissal on an anti-SLAPP motion. The Times also prevailed at the intermediate review step in the California Court of Appeal. Last week the Supreme Court granted Ted Rall’s petition to review the case. More details about the case here.

It’s Over: California Supreme Court Denies Review of Palos Verdes Estates Parkland Sale

In January, the Second District Court of Appeal issued its opinion about the validity of the property deed restrictions and the propriety of the 2012 sale of parkland in Palos Verdes Estates. The Palos Verdes Homes Association — still convinced it has the absolute power to sell parkland — asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in and hear the case. On April 11, 2018, the Supreme Court declined. Thus, the 2015 ruling by the Superior Court and the January 30, 2018 Court of Appeal ruling are now the final word on whether the Palos Verdes Homes Association has the power to sell parkland.


Court of Appeal Denies Rehearing of Parkland Appeal

In January, the Second District Court of Appeal issued its opinion about the validity of the property deed restrictions and the propriety of the 2012 sale of parkland in Palos Verdes Estates. The Palos Verdes Homes Association filed a Petition for Rehearing asking the same three appellate justices who decided the case to change their mind. Today that request for a rehearing was denied. In addition, the Court of Appeal strengthened its earlier decision by adding the following footnote to the opinion on the validity of the deeds:

The Association argues that it had the right to transfer the parkland to the Luglianis because this original declaration was never properly amended. But, the Chairman of the Association’s board expressly consented to the terms of the 1940 deed. By expressly agreeing to those terms, the Association cannot now argue that Bank of America had no power to include them.


Cartoonist Ted Rall Takes His Battle Against the Los Angeles Times to the California Courts of Appeal

Ted Rall is an award-winning nationally syndicated political cartoonist who was terminated by the Los Angeles Times as a favor to outgoing LAPD Chief Charlie Beck in 2015. (At the time, the LAPD Protective League pension fund was the biggest shareholder of the Times’ parent company.) Adding insult to injury, the Times published two pieces, both proven false, that defamed Rall in a scorched-earth attempt to destroy his journalistic career. Mr. Rall sued in 2016. Now his fight for justice goes to California’s Courts of Appeal.

The Times, now under new ownership but being run into the ground by the Chicago-based “Tronc” corporation at the time, wrongfully terminated Mr. Rall in 2015 based on allegations that Mr. Rall falsified a story about being roughed up and handcuffed by the LAPD for jaywalking in 2001. Thanks to audio technology, Mr. Rall used the Times’ own evidence to prove that he told the truth, and that the LAPD lied. Inexplicably, the Times still refuses to admit they were wrong, issue a retraction and give Mr Rall his job back. Mr. Rall sued the Times and others responsible for his firing in 2016 but in the summer of 2017 the case was dismissed. Ironically, the Times used a California law designed to protect individuals’ First Amendment rights – the anti-SLAPP law – to obtain a dismissal before Mr. Rall could conduct discovery and before a jury could hear Mr. Rall’s story.

“This is about a lot more than a newspaper firing a cartoonist,” said Mr. Rall. “It’s about a newspaper colluding with a government agency, the most heavily militarized police department in the United States, in order to send a chilling message to journalists in Southern California that they risk losing everything if they dare to report the truth about the LAPD. How can the Times speak truth to power, when it’s in bed with that power?

This week Mr. Rall’s legal team – Roger Lowenstein and Jeff Lewis – filed an appellate brief before California’s Court of Appeals to reinstate Mr. Rall’s case and vindicate Mr. Rall’s First Amendment rights to speak his mind – draw his cartoons. You can access Mr. Rall’s opening brief here. As argued in the brief: “The Times hired Rall to speak truth to power, and when he did his job too well, they fired him.”

“Working on a case like this for a client like Ted is the reason I went to law school,” said Jeff Lewis. Although Mr. Lewis frequently represents defendants in anti-SLAPP motions and appeals, in this case, accepting the representation for a plaintiff was an easy choice. “The anti-SLAPP law was designed to protect an individual from a wealthy corporation using an army of lawyers to silence critics. In this case, the anti-SLAPP law was turned on its head by the Times’ massive financial and legal resources to keep a jury from ever hearing Ted’s story,” said Mr. Lewis.

#         #         #

About Jeff Lewis

Jeff Lewis is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization representing businesses and individuals in First Amendment and SLAPP matters throughout California. Contact Info: Tel. (310) 935-4001, E-Mail:, Web:


About Roger Lowenstein

Roger Lowenstein is a lawyer (Harvard ‘68) and former professor of constitutional law. He is the founder and Executive Director of a social justice-themed charter school in Lincoln Heights. The school, Los Angeles Leadership Academy, K-12, serves 650 predominantly Latino families and is designed to produce critical thinkers who perceive themselves as agents of social change. 100% of the students graduate and go to college.


About Ted Rall

Ted Rall, cartoonist for Forbes, is America’s most widely-syndicated alternative editorial cartoonist. Twice the winner of the RFK Journalism Award and a Pulitzer Prize finalist, Rall’s cartoons and illustrations have appeared in Time, Newsweek, USA Today, Rolling Stone, Esquire, The Wall Street Journal, The Village Voice and hundreds of other publications and websites. He is a regular contributor to MAD magazine.

Rall is the author of 20 books, including the Gen X manifesto Revenge of the Latchkey Kids, the bestselling first book filed from the 2001 U.S. invasion, To Afghanistan and Back, the radical Anti-American Manifesto, and a mixed-media look at the U.S. occupation from beginning to end, After We Kill You We Will Welcome You As Honored Guests. Most recently, he authored the New York Times bestselling graphic biography Bernie, as well as the bios Snowden and Trump.

Court of Appeal Finds Deed Restrictions Apply and are Enforceable in Palos Verdes Estates

Today the Court of Appeal issued its decision in the long simmering dispute over the City of Palos Verdes Estates’ sale of parkland. A copy of the decision can be read here. In sum, the Court of Appeal agreed that summary judgment should have been granted as to the Palos Verdes Homes Association (“Homes Association”) and the Luglianis. Their actions violated deed restrictions. The Court of Appeal, however, found that the relief fashioned in the judgment should be limited solely to the Panorama Parkland and not impact all 800 acres of parkland in the City. The Court of Appeal has ordered the trial court to issue a more narrow judgment against the Homes Association and the Luglianis. The Court of Appeal found that neither my clients nor the City were entitled to summary judgment and instead the matter should proceed to trial against the City.

I am grateful that the Court of Appeal today confirmed the essence of what my clients have been saying since 2012: “that the deed restrictions mean what they say—Parcel A is intended to be parkland for the community.” (Opinion, p. 14). The parkland case is now over as to the Homes Association and the Luglianis. The Court of the Appeal has affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the Homes Association and the Luglianis finding there was no question of fact to be tried regarding the Homes Association and the Luglianis’ actions. Per the Court of Appeal:  “We do not agree with the Association and the Luglianis that their actions were proper; the transfer of property from the Association to the Luglianis violated certain deed restrictions.” (Opinion, p. 3). The case will now be remanded to discuss the proper form of the judgment to be entered against the Homes Association and the Luglianis.

As for the City, the case will move forward to trial. The Court of Appeal ruled that neither the City nor my clients were entitled to receive summary judgment due to the existence of fact questions about the City’s intentions in conveying parkland. It remains to be seen what the City will do. Will the City continue to fight in court for the “right” for the City to liquidate the City’s 800 acres of parkland? I hope for the community’s sake that the City does not waste more legal fees to fight for a right that no residents want the City to assert. The City should take no solace in the fact that the summary judgment was reversed as to the City. The Court of Appeal observed: “While the City may have had the right to transfer Parcel A to the Association, it may not have had the right to do so if it knew that the Association was going to transfer Parcel A to the Luglianis.” (Opinion, p. 10). That is precisely the intent of the MOU – to get a public park into the hands of the Luglianis. I am confident that if this matter proceeds to trial against the City that the court will conclude that the City’s objective — to get the Panorama Parkland into the hands of the Luglianis will be found to be improper.

On a personal note, having represented the plaintiffs and respondents pro bono since 2013, I was gratified that the Court of Appeal concluded by finding that “the public did benefit from this litigation—namely through the protection of a public park.” (Opinion, p. 19).

Jeff Lewis Successfully Defends Anti-SLAPP Victory on Appeal

On January 4, 2012, the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three issued its opinion in the case of Rothman v. Masson. Mr. Lewis represented attorney Richard Masson in this appeal from Masson’s successful anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal found that Masson had probable cause as a matter of law to file a prior action against attorney Larry Rothman and the lawsuit against Masson for malicious prosecution was properly dismissed as a SLAPP.