BAY GUARDIAN COMPANY v.NEW TIMES MEDIA LLC Part-I
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>BAY GUARDIAN COMPANY v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >BAY GUARDIAN COMPANY v.NEW TIMES<br /> MEDIA LLC</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/11/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FIRST<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> ONE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=650<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=288 valign=top ><br /> <br/>BAY GUARDIAN COMPANY,<br /> <br/> Plaintiff<br /> and Respondent,<br /> <br/>v.<br /> <br/>NEW TIMES MEDIA LLC et al.,<br /> <br/> Defendants and Appellants.<br /> </td><br /> <td width=362 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> A122448<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Super. Ct.<br /> for the City & County of <br /> <br/> San Francisco<br /> No. CGC-04-435584)<br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> The Bay<br /> Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly are competing alternative newspapers in<br /> the San<br /> Francisco Bay Area. Each paper<br /> relies on advertising revenue in large part to sustain the publication of the<br /> news weekly. San Francisco Weekly<br /> offered advertising to business entities at a rate lower than was provided by<br /> the Bay Guardian. Consequently, the Bay<br /> Guardian sued San Francisco Weekly for unfair<br /> competition under California<br /> law. It was successful and won a jury<br /> verdict of approximately $16 million. <br /> <br/> This appeal<br /> has been taken by defendants New Times Media (the New Times), San Francisco<br /> Weekly (the SF Weekly), and East Bay Express (the Express), from a judgment<br /> that awarded plaintiff Bay Area Guardian (the Guardian) damages in an action<br /> for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17043 based on<br /> sales of advertising at rates below cost for the purpose of harming a<br /> competitor.<b ><b >[1]</b></b> Defendants claim that the trial court erred<br /> by failing to admit defense evidence<br /> and properly instruct the jury on the essential element in a section 17043<br /> action of proof of the defendant's ability to recoup losses. Defendants also argue that the court gave<br /> defective instructions on the intent or â€