Escondido fluoridation: Judge denies State's motion to eliminate jury

[Guest guest]

Escondido fluoridation: Judge denies State's motion toJeff Green Escondido fluoridation: Judge denies State's motion to eliminate juryNews Release Contact: Jeff GreenAugust 7, 2003 Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (800) 728-3833 http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.orgJudge denies State, and City of Escondido, motions to vacate jury trial on Constitutional complaint concerning fluoridationIn a telephonic ruling on August 7, 2003, involving fluoridation of Escondido's public water supplies, Judge Dana M. Sabraw denied motions made by the California Department of Health Services and City of Escondido to vacate the Judge's previous order for a jury trial scheduled to be heard on November 21, 2003, as well as their preferred order to Reset Trial Without Jury.Judge Sabraw found in favor of the Plaintiff's argument, made by attorney Kyle Nordrehaug, that asserted that the Plaintiffs in this case had a right to a trial by a jury to make determinations on disputed issues of fact, and a judge for matters of law, and that until full discovery is concluded there is not yet an assessment of exactly what issues will be disputed.This case of Macy et al., vs. City of Escondido and California Department of Health Services began as a Constitutional complaint against the City of Escondido for their selection of an untested, unapproved fluoridation chemical, containing excessive contaminants, for which the Plaintiffs contend it can be proven with a preponderance of evidence that there is a reasonable expectation that consumers will be harmed.In their earlier efforts to remove themselves from the case, the City of Escondido claimed that they were being compelled by the State to fluoridate,In the California Department of Health Services' earlier efforts to remove themselves from the case, their attorneys claimed in their filings that the Department does not have the authority to select, or force the City to use, any particular fluoridation substance __ merely "permit" a selection made by the City.This statement by the California Department of Health Services may soon be contrasted with their assertions as Defendant in a case brought by the City of Watsonville that Watsonville must proceed with fluoridation even after citizens enacted an ordinance that prohibits adding any substance to the water for purposes of fulfilling a health claim that has not been specifically approved for the health claim by the FDA, and restricts the level of contaminants in the product to levels already established as Public Health Goals.A case conference, at which Judge McAdams of Santa Cruz County Superior Court is expected to rule on whether the California Dental Association and its fluoridation funding agent can become a co-defendant and cross-complainant in the Watsonville vs. California Dental Health Services lawsuit is scheduled for Monday, August 11, at 8:30 a.m.In a series of previous rulings, Judge Sabraw has denied specialized motions for dismissal (demurrers) from both the CA Department of Health Services and the City of Escondido, which have been the proverbial roadblock to previous cases involving fluoridation from coming to trial on the merits.On this Monday, August 4, 2003, all parties had the opportunity to identify their expert witnesses, with a second expert designation opportunity on August 25, 2003.The case schedule designates October 14, 2003 for the cut-off for discovery and legal motions, after which time the Defendant City of Escondido and California Department of Health Services could conceivably reintroduce their motion to rid themselves of a jury trial on their claim that there are no disputes on issues of fact at that time.Any of the parties may request oral arguments on Judge Sabraw's decision within the next two days, which in that event will be scheduled for Friday, August 15 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 27 of the North County San Diego Superior Court.The electronic ruling by Judge Sabraw can be accessed up until 12:00 a.m. Wednesday morning at:http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/superior/online/telerule.htmlCase # GIN015280Other rulings on the case can be accessed at http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org-30-