New York Daily News

By Nancy Dillon

July 11, 2018

Download Article

Model Janice Dickinson’s defamation case against Bill Cosby will continue toward trial in Los Angeles, but likely in a slimmed-down form, a judge said Wednesday. “Mr. Cosby is not getting out of this case today,” Judge Randolph Hammock said as Cosby’s lawyer, Alan Greenberg, stepped to a podium to argue motions including an attempt to strike Dickinson’s amended complaint.

The judge declined to issue a final order on all matters Wednesday but said he likely would adopt a tentative ruling that drops Dickson’s claims of false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Cosby and dismisses lawyer Marty Singer as a co-defendant. He said the defamation claim against Cosby would endure.

“You have, in my opinion, a viable cause of action for defamation against Mr. Cosby only,” Judge Hammock told Dickinson’s lawyer, Jivaka Candappa. “You’ve got the heart of the case, and right now the heart of the case is surviving.”

Dickinson sued Cosby in May 2015, saying he intentionally defamed her when Singer issued statements that branded her a liar after she accused Cosby of drugging and raping her in a Lake Tahoe area hotel room in 1982.

Judge Hammock said Wednesday enough evidence exists to suggest Cosby approved several statements issued by Singer. He specifically pointed to a declaration from Singer saying his custom and practice is to clear his statements with his clients.

“Here he’s saying Mr. Cosby basically approved the statements. ‘I let him check them out, and then I released them.’ That’s a pretty good thing for you guys,” the judge told Candappa.

Mr. Cosby’s lawyer disputed that in his arguments, giving a hint of how Cosby might defend himself in a trial. “There’s no evidence Mr. Cosby knew there would be anything beyond a denial,” Greenberg told the court Wednesday.

The judge upheld Dickinson’s right to reference some additional press statements from Singer issued on Nov. 20 and 21 in 2014, but not others. For example, a statement in which Singer said women appeared to be “coming out of the woodwork with unsubstantiated or fabricated stories about my client” should be fair game, the judge said in court. He said statements from Singer in which the lawyer said, “We’ve reached the point of absurdity,” and, “The stories are getting more ridiculous,” were opinions and should be off limits. The case already won the right to reference earlier statements from Singer in which he specifically trashed Dickson’s rape claim as “fabricated,” “outrageous” and “defamatory.” The judge promised to issue a final ruling on the motions later in the week.

Candappa said it’s possible his side will file an appeal if Singer is dropped as a co-defendant. He argued in court that Dickinson needs a chance to obtain discovery from Singer to prove her claims. The judge said such discovery would amount to a “fishing expedition” that likely would prove “futile” because of attorney-client privilege protections. Either way, Candappa said Dickinson will press ahead. “We’re not dropping this case. We’re in it for the long haul,” he said.

Dickinson took the stand at Cosby’s recent criminal trial and testified under oath the disgraced 80-year-old comic drugged and raped her during their 1982 encounter. She testified that the only reason she did not include the alleged incident in her memoir, “No Lifeguard on Duty,” was because her publisher said she had to sanitize it to get the book published. “I understand that. There’s a ring of truth to that, for me,” Judge Hammock said Wednesday, referring to Dickinson’s explanation about the omission.

Cosby was convicted on April 26 of drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand at his suburban Philadelphia mansion in 2004. He remains under house arrest pending his sentencing in September. Speaking to the Daily News after the hearing Wednesday, Greenberg declined to say how Cosby is faring after the conviction. “We have complete confidence Mr. Cosby will win this case,” he said, referring to the defamation action.

A second lawyer for Dickinson said the model, 63, is “doing well.” “She was proud to testify at the criminal trial and would like to volunteer a victim statement for sentencing,” lawyer Alan Goldstein said.

“I’m very pleased the court is going to make the right decision,” lawyer Marty Singer told The News after the hearing Wednesday. “I never should have been sued.”

The Blast

By TheBlast Staff

November 21, 2017

Link to Article

Janice Dickinson will have her day in court with Bill Cosby after a judge ruled today that she can continue forward with her lawsuit against Cosby and his lawyer, Marty Singer.

Dickinson had previously sued Cosby for defamation after the comedian called her a liar following her accusations of rape. She then added Singer to the suit after the lawyer issued a press release reiterating Cosby’s comments.

Dickinson’s case was initially dismissed, but she appealed. Today, an appellate court issued an order saying that the lower court erred in tossing the case out and Dickinson has shown enough evidence to demonstrate the case has merit.

Dickinson’s lawsuit centered around a demand letter Singer had sent to various media outlets threatening them with a lawsuit if they reported on Dickinson’s claims, and a press release characterizing her rape accusations as a lie. The appellate court ruled Dickinson has a case in regards to the demand letter, but upheld the lower court’s ruling to dismiss the claim in regards to the press release.

In doing so, the appellate court said of the demand letter, “At least for purposes of the present appeal, Cosby has waived any argument that Singer was not acting as his agent when he made the statements at issue in this case. When someone is publicly accused of rape, is asked for a response, and sends back a letter from counsel saying, ‘the alleged rape never happened,’ it is reasonable for the recipient of the letter to infer that the accused is, in fact, denying the rape.”

Dickinson’s attorney, Lisa Bloom, celebrated the ruling on Twitter, writing, “We have just learned that we won our appeal on behalf of our client Janice Dickinson against Bill Cosby. The court ruled for us on all three issues. Kudos to my Bloom Firm attorneys Jivaka Candappa and Avi Goldstein who worked on this defamation case with me for nearly 3 years.”

Singer’s appellate attorney, Jeremy Rosen, tells The Blast, “We disagree with the Court of Appeal’s decision permitting Mr. Singer to be named as a party, and are exploring all legal options, including whether to seek Supreme Court review. Ultimately, we feel confident that Mr. Singer will prevail on the merits if and when a court ever reaches those issues.”

July 13, 2013

Jivaka Candappa has been named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine in 2013, an honor that recognizes only 2.5% of lawyers as top up-and-coming attorneys in California. He was also named a Rising Star in 2012. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a rigorous multi-phased process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area.

The Rising Stars list is published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazine and in leading city and regional magazines across the country. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to superlawyers.com.

May 12, 2013

In January of 2012, the Candappa Law Firm, through the National Lawyers Guild, volunteered to provide free legal representation to four Occupy Oakland demonstrators who were wrongfully arrested and prosecuted for participating in demonstrations in the City of Oakland. The demonstrators were charged with misdemeanor crimes including battery on a police officer, resisting an officer, vandalism, and obstructing a sidewalk or street. Three of these demonstrators were also issued stay away orders by the court at the request of the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.

On April 25, 2012, Jivaka Candappa won the first of four dismissals. Mr. Candappa’s client, an attorney, was charged with obstructing a street and resisting police during an Occupy Oakland demonstration on January 28, 2012. She claimed that the Oakland Police Department had lied about the incident and its officers attacked her without provocation. Mr. Candappa secured the dismissal of all charges after obtaining videos which showed a police officer forcefully pushing his client to the ground and other officers manhandling her as she attempted to get back on her feet.

On March 14, 2013, Mr. Candappa obtained a second dismissal on behalf of a client who was charged with vandalism and resisting police during the January 28th Occupy Oakland demonstration. Mr. Candappa’s investigation revealed that another demonstrator had, in fact, been arrested and convicted for the alleged vandalism. Despite the conviction of this individual, the District Attorney’s Office still pursued charges against Mr. Candappa’s client. When Mr. Candappa provided the court with irrefutable evidence that another had accepted responsibility for the alleged vandalism and that his client was a victim of mistaken identity the charges against his client were dismissed.

On April 18, 2013, Mr. Candappa secured dismissals on behalf of two more Occupy Oakland demonstrators. In one case, Mr. Candappa’s client was accused of battering and resisting a police officer during the January 28th demonstration. His client was marching peacefully when OPD officers tackled her from behind and arrested her without cause. The OPD officers who arrested Mr. Candappa’s client alleged that she had tried to grab an officer’s baton, but the officers were unable to identify the officer who was the alleged victim of this battery. The OPD also failed to produce any videos depicting the alleged battery on the officer, as required by its own crowd control policy, and refused to identify the two officers who were depicted in a CBS video (obtained by Mr. Candappa) arresting his client after she had been tackled and forced to the ground. The court dismissed the charges against Mr. Candappa’s client on due process grounds.

In the other case dismissed on April 18, 2013, Mr. Candappa’s client was charged with obstructing a street and resisting police during an Occupy Oakland demonstration on January 14, 2012. After numerous discovery motions filed by Mr. Candappa, the court dismissed the charges citing discovery violations and in the interest of justice.

July 6, 2012

Jivaka Candappa has been named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine, an honor that recognizes only 2.5% of lawyers as top up-and-coming attorneys in the state. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a rigorous multi-phased process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area.

The Rising Stars list is published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazine and in leading city and regional magazines across the country. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to superlawyers.com.

May 21, 2012

Jivaka Candappa is named in California’s 2011 Top Verdict Search Settlements by the leading legal magazine, The Recorder.  Mr. Candappa was recognized for winning a $1 million settlement on behalf of drug treatment center against the City of San Jose in a federal disability discrimination case.

Inter Press News

By Judith Scherr

March 23, 2012

Link to Article

OAKLAND, California, Mar 23 2012 (IPS) – A dozen or so people in the Wednesday night crowd of around 150 at the amphitheatre in the public plaza at Oakland City Hall covered their faces with masks or bandanas.

They wanted to make it difficult for police observing the scene to know if activists slapped with judicial orders barring them from the plaza had violated the orders and were at the rally hosted by Occupy Oakland’s Interfaith Committee.

Religious leaders from the Christian, Buddhist, Muslim and Jewish faiths from across the country organised the event, where they called for economic justice and condemned what they said were illegal court orders that banned more than a dozen activists from the physical space that has been the heart of organising for Occupy Oakland since its inception.

“We don’t know if any real people with stay-away orders are with us or not,” said Rev. Doctor Rita Nakashima-Brock, one of the Interfaith Committee rally organisers. “We’re not asking who’s behind the masks.”

Stay-away orders are the newest weapon in District Attorney Nancy O’Malley’s arsenal to control the occupy groups that continue to proliferate in the Oakland-Berkeley area over which she has jurisdiction.

O’Malley issued stay-away orders to Occupy Oakland activists arrested in January, barring most of them from coming within 100 or 300 yards of the public plaza where Occupy Oakland originally set up its encampment and where it continues to hold meetings and rallies.

And this week, O’Malley imposed new stay-away orders for a dozen Occupy Cal activists arraigned Mar. 19, 20 and 21. These activists, mostly University of California, Berkeley students, are banned statewide from University of California property, except to go to class or work.

The American Civil Liberties Union responded in superior court to the Occupy Oakland activists’ stay-away orders with a habeas corpus writ, arguing that the orders violate constitutional protections.

“They are all clearly violations of First Amendment rights, their right to engage in expressive activity,” said Jivaka Candappa, attorney for two of the four people named in the ACLU writ. “They wanted to break the back of the movement and this is a way of teaching these demonstrators a lesson,” he added.

Candappa underscored that none of those facing stay-away orders has been convicted of a crime. “When someone is still fighting the charges, when they’re still presumed innocent under the constitution, to impose these restrictions on their First Amendment rights, is unreasonable,” he said.

Yvette Felarca is one of 12 Occupy Cal activists hit this week with a stay-away order. Felarca, a recent graduate of UC Berkeley’s School of Education, a middle school teacher in Berkeley and organiser with the campus group By Any Means Necessary, was among the UC Berkeley demonstrators, who, on Nov. 9, attempted to link arms to prevent police from tearing down the tent camp they had established.

(Felarca wasn’t arrested at the time, and only found she was charged with obstructing a police officer and maliciously blocking a sidewalk when she received a letter in early March indicating she was to appear at the arraignment.)

You Tube videos watched worldwide showed police beating students with batons and dragging a female professor by her hair. One video shows Felarca, the small 110-pound Asian woman, apparently beaten by police.

“It’s a political witch hunt by the university administration and also by the district attorney… to suppress our right to defend public education,” Felarca told IPS, further alleging that the DA charged protesters selectively.

“All of us charged have been very prominent or public organisers, activists and leaders,” Felarca said.

Attorney Ronald Cruz said he is submitting a brief Friday to ask the court to reverse the stay-away order for Felarca and two other clients banned from university property.

District Attorney O’Malley declined interview requests, but laid out the logic of the stay-away orders in a San Francisco Chronicle editorial. “These (First Amendment) rights…must be and will be measured and balanced with protecting the safety of our community,” she wrote. “Stay-away orders serve a vital community need to keep the peace, avoid further criminal conduct and maintain safety in public spaces.”

The editorial questions the activists’ motives: “These individuals were not rallying on behalf of Occupy Wall Street, or even the greater Occupy Oakland movement. Rather, they advertise themselves as ‘militant, anti-government, anti-police, and anarchists,’ with a mission to destroy the community fabric of Oakland through the use of violence.”

Pointing to his client, Joanne Warwick, who is an attorney and has never before been arrested, Candappa scoffed at the claim that the activists with stay-away orders are violent.

“It was just a blanket request that the court was granting despite (attorney) objections,” he said. “There was no showing that the individuals were engaged in violence or that they had a history of violence or that they were a threat to public safety.”

Candappa said the violence did not come from Warwick. A video of the incident, which took place at a Jan. 28 march, where Occupy Oakland activists were hoping to occupy a vacant convention centre, “clearly shows the officer pushing (my client) with both hands and she tumbles to the ground and she gets arrested by a bunch of other officers,” he said.

Candappa does not dispute claims that there have been acts of vandalism during Occupy Oakland demonstrations. But “to suggest that this entire movement is kind-of one huge gang is just preposterous,” he said.

In the courtroom on Wednesday, attorney Sarah Belletto argued against the stay-away orders for Occupy Cal activist Roman Quintero, a Geography and Ethnic Studies major at UC Berkeley. Belletto entered a not-guilty plea after which a deputy district attorney asked the judge to impose stay-away orders.

Belletto argued that her client was law-abiding and not a risk to public safety. “I cannot believe that a general stay away order is appropriate,” she told the judge. “On Nov. 9, he was exercising his First Amendment rights.”

Judge Paul Seeman imposed the order, saying it was “related to public safety”.

Outside the courtroom, Quintero talked about why he was protesting that day. “I was basically exercising my First Amendment, free speech rights to speak up against the budget cuts, speak up against police brutality, speak out about what’s happening in the U.S. as a whole, with discrimination, class oppression, lack of democracy, lack of transparency,” he said.

Recalling that the university had been home to the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, attorney Ronald Cruz, also speaking outside the courtroom, accused the government of trying to make an example of the protesters.

“The political forces behind the witch hunt are trying to use the home of the free speech movement to set the precedent nationally that students and others that defend public education will be brutalised and prosecuted,” he said. “This is a nationally prominent case. The students on the campus are going to be key to make sure free speech stays alive in Berkeley.”

San Francisco Bay Guardian

By Yael Chanoff

February 10, 2012

Link to Article

The first Occupy Oakland protester to allegedly be in violation of a stay-away order has a hearing today.

Joseph Briones, 30, was arrested along with 408 others at an Occupy Oakland protest Jan. 28. He is one of 12 who were apparently issued the restraining orders, and is therefore barred from being within 300 yards of Oakland City Hall, potentially for the next three years, according to Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Teresa Drenick.

But based on a Feb. 8 hearing, Briones and his lawyer understood that he did not have a stay-away order against him, said Occupy Oakland media committee member Omar Yassin.

“That’s why he was at the plaza, carefree, on Wednesday,” said Yassin. That’s when Briones was arrested.

In a Feb. 9 press release, Officer Johnna Watson of Oakland Police media relations said that “Joseph Briones is one of four individuals charged with a violent felony offense stemming from the Jan. 28 protest.” But according to records at the District Attorney’s office, that’s incorrect; Briones is charged with three misdemeanors.

While everyone scrambles to get their story straight, Briones is still in jail. He has a hearing at 2 o’ clock today. If found to have violated a stay-away order, he could face six months in prison.

So far, Briones is legally innocent of any crime; he has not been convicted of any of the charges leveled on him in connection with Jan. 28. None of the other 11 who are prohibited from going near City Hall have been convicted of anything either.

Besides all that, the stay-away orders may be entirely illegal.

According to Jivaka Candappa, one of the attorneys working on the stay-away order cases, “the orders are unconstitutional and unreasonable.”

Most of the charges on the twelve are as benign as blocking the sidewalk and remaining at the scene of a riot (the latter is the same charge that was placed on hundreds who were cited and released with no bail, and whose charges will likely be dropped—including me.) Even the felony charges, such as assault of a police officer, are common charges leveled on protesters that are usually dismissed. It is highly unusual to ban individuals from any public place, for any reason, let alone City Hall and a public plaza so obviously necessary for access to First Amendment rights, under any circumstances.

“This is legitimate action in, for example, a domestic violence situation. Here, protesters have not attacked anybody and they’re not a physical threat,” said attorney Mike Flynn, president of the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.

Candappa says that he and his colleagues may file motions in the Alameda County Superior Court challenging constitutionality of the stay-away orders.

Said Candappa, “preventing someone from exercising their First Amendment rights doesn’t promote public safety. Courts are very reluctant to restrain someone’s expressive rights, because it’s really a cornerstone of any democracy and if you want to be able to participate in democracy you’ve got to have a right to express yourself. To take away that fundamental right to express yourself is something courts are very reluctant to do, especially when those conditions are applied against someone who has not yet been convicted.” 

Contra Costa Times

November 21, 2009 

Hilary Costa, Staff Writer

Download Article

Antioch and the city’s school district have settled a lawsuit by the families of three teens involved in a March 2007 melee with police at a gas station near Deer Valley High School.

According to a news release issued by the plaintiffs’ attorney, the teens will receive compensation totaling $775,000 from the city and the Antioch school district. The school district’s portion of the settlement is about $520,000, school board President Walter Ruehlig said.

The suit, filed in May 2008 by the teens’ parents, claimed their children, who are African-American, were “racially profiled” and “physically attacked” by Antioch police officers at Gas City at 4198 Lone Tree Way.

The incident on March 7, 2007, began when police told Deer Valley High School student Michael Housley, then 16, to stop blocking traffic as he walked with two other students through a shopping center near the school. When an officer tried to give Housley a citation, police said the teen ran and taunted the officer.

Police chased Housley to the service station, where officers used physical force and pepper spray to subdue him and other students, according to police. A crowd gathered at the scene, and police arrested seven students and an adult in the incident.

In May and June of 2007, the Antioch school board voted unanimously to expel the seven students involved in the altercation. The Contra Costa County Board of Education reinstated one of the students, and in May 2008 a Contra Costa Superior Court judge overturned two other expulsions. The remaining four students did not appeal the district’s decision.

The Antioch school district settled its portion of the lawsuit earlier this year, and the city settled Nov. 12.

City Attorney Lynn Tracy Nerland said in an e-mail that the decision to settle was made by the Municipal Pooling Authority, which is a self-insurance system for public agencies. Nerland said that in civil rights cases such as this, plaintiffs can collect attorneys’ fees if they win, but the reverse isn’t true for the defendant.

“The school district settled in the spring, leaving the city alone to fight the lawsuit. A business decision was recently made by the city’s joint risk pool in consultation with the city to settle as well, given plaintiffs’ attorney’s increasing claim for attorneys’ fees,” Nerland said.

Jivaka Candappa, the attorney for the plaintiffs, questioned Nerland’s explanation. He said settling earlier would also have saved the city the money it has since spent on litigation.

“Without saying so in specific terms, I think the settlement figure speaks for itself,” Candappa said. “If the city felt it was not at fault and if the school district felt it was not at fault, they would not have paid that kind of money.”

Though the City Council did not vote on it, Mayor Jim Davis said in an e-mail the settlement should not be considered a precedent.

“I believe we had a good defense; and I stand 100 percent behind our police department, and in Antioch it is not OK to commit crimes, as you will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Davis said.

Reach Hilary Costa at 925-779-7166. Follow her at Twitter.com/hilaryccosta.

ACLU of Northern California, Press Release

May 23, 2008

Link to Article

SAN FRANCISCO – A Contra Costa County Superior Court has ruled that the Antioch Unified School District violated the rights of two students when it improperly expelled them from school following an off-campus incident in which police officers pepper sprayed the students and forcefully arrested them. The judge overturned the expulsions.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC) and Berkeley attorney Jivaka Candappa sued the Antioch Unified School District on behalf of the students, arguing that the school district lacked the authority to expel the students based on the incident, and that the students’ due process rights were violated during the expulsion hearings.

“No student deserves to be treated in the manner that these students were treated by the school district and by the police,” said Greta Hansen of the ACLU-NC.  “The court’s ruling sends a message to school districts about the limits of district authority to punish students for conduct with no legitimate connection to school.”

The two teens were expelled for their alleged involvement in a March 2007 incident at a local shopping center and gas station in which several students from Deer Valley High School were arrested by police officers.

In his ruling, Judge Thomas Maddock of the Contra Costa County Superior Court stated that the District had no authority to expel the two students based on an incident that occurred off campus and after school. Judge Maddock concluded that because the school resource officer was working with the Antioch Police Department, he was acting as a regular police officer, not as a school official.  (The school resource officer is an employee of the Antioch Police Department.)

School authorities argued that the students’ involvement in the incident could be viewed as a violation of the Education Code because one of the police officers involved in the incident was the school resource officer assigned to Deer Valley High School.  After an administrative hearing, the School District expelled the students, and the Contra County Board of Education upheld the expulsions on appeal. Judge Maddock overturned the expulsions on May 7, 2008.

Background

On March 7, 2007 a student and two friends were walking through the parking lot of Deer Valley Plaza on their way to a fast food restaurant. They were stopped by an officer of the Antioch Police Department, who accused them of blocking traffic by walking through the parking lot rather than on the sidewalk. Shortly thereafter Officer Vincent approached them again, threatened to write one of the three students a citation for blocking traffic, and got out of his vehicle. One student ran away from the officer and the officer gave chase, holding a canister of pepper spray in his hand.

The officer and others who joined him apprehended the student at a nearby gas station, where they pepper sprayed him, threw him to the ground, and forcefully arrested him.  They also pepper sprayed and forcefully arrested several other students, many of whom were mere bystanders.  Some of the incident was caught on video by another student using a digital camera. Among the officers involved in the incident was the school resource officer assigned to Deer Valley High School. After a brief investigation by the vice principal, the students were suspended.

In May and June of 2007, the School District held expulsion hearings for each student.  The police officers involved in the incident submitted police reports with a detailed accounting of the incidents, but attorneys for the students were not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the officers in order to test the veracity of their account.