SF

With little comment, Judge Marla Miller on Friday denied requests from SF Weekly to overturn the verdict in favor of the Bay Guardian or to order a new trial, the Guardian reports. The ruling means the predatory-pricing case will likely head to the California Court of Appeal.

The two papers were in San Francisco Superior Court on Tuesday to argue the Weekly's motion for a new trial and its request that the judge overturn a jury verdict in the predatory-pricing suit. Judge Marla Miller has until July 18 to rule on the motions; if she rules against the Weekly, it will take the case to the California Court of Appeals. In dueling blog posts, the Weekly lays out the four chief arguments put forth by its lawyers and pokes a little fun at the Guardian's lawyers, while the Guardian details the Weekly's "at times highly technical" arguments, which "hinged on the finer points of the definitions of words."

The motions, which were filed earlier this week, ask Superior Court Judge Marla J. Miller to order a new trial if she won't reverse the verdict in the predatory-pricing case, the Weekly reports. The thrust of the Weekly's motion: That the Guardian didn't offer "any actual evidence of an illegal below-cost pricing conspiracy," that the verdict "violates the Weekly's First Amendment and due process rights," and lastly that "the trial was riddled with legal error that unfairly shifted the burden of proof onto the defense." If the judge denies the new motions, the Weekly says it and Village Voice Media intend "to take the case to the California Court of Appeals, which in turn would trigger a process expected to take up to eighteen months."

Weekly attorney Rod Kerr last week argued for a stay of the predatory-pricing trial's $15.6 million judgment until 10 days after Judge Marla Miller rules on post-trial motions, which could have delayed the enforcement until July 28, the Guardian reports. Kerr said that the current economic turmoil combined with the company's belief that the judgment amount would be substantially lowered during post-trial rulings made it hard for Village Voice Media to secure a bond for the full amount. The judge granted a stay, but only until June 18. She also said she'd allow "the defendants to return to court to ask for more time if they can provide evidence showing how it will result in a bond being issued," according to the Guardian. When reached by AAN News, a representative from VVM said the company had no comment on last week's development. Both sides will appear in court July 8 for post-trial motions, including one by VVM to throw out the verdict and order a new trial.

As expected, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Marla Miller on Monday raised the amount the Weekly must pay in damages to the San Francisco Bay Guardian, from $6.3 million to $15.9 million. Miller also issued a 10-year injunction, barring the Weekly from selling display ads below cost, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. In the lawsuit, the Guardian accused the Weekly and its parent company Village Voice Media of selling ads below cost with the intent of harming the Guardian. A jury ruled in favor of the Guardian in March. SF Weekly still plans to appeal. Read more on the latest ruling from the Weekly and the Guardian.

Judge Marla Miller of San Francisco Superior Court said Friday she's inclined to boost a jury's damages award against the Weekly from $6.3 million to $15.6 million, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. Miller, in what she described as a tentative decision, said she would triple the portion of the damages that equals one year of losses, bringing the total to $15.6 million. She also said she'll likely issue an injunction barring the Weekly from continuing to sell ads below cost. She is expected to make a final ruling this week. The Weekly says it will appeal. Read more from the Bay Guardian and the Weekly.