BAY GUARDIAN COMPANY v.NEW TIMES MEDIA LLC Part-II
<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<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/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM <br /> PART I….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Defendants' proposed interpretation of section 17043 is at<br /> odds with both common sense and the objectives of the statute. Defendants would have us interpret the law to<br /> prohibit below-cost pricing only if multiple competitors are the target of an<br /> unlawful marketing scheme. As we have<br /> observed, the â€