Bay Area Publishing Co. v. Lesher Communications, Inc.

169 Cal. App. 3d 865, 215 Cal. Rptr. 529, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2330
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 28, 1985
DocketNo. A023521
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 Cal. App. 3d 865 (Bay Area Publishing Co. v. Lesher Communications, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bay Area Publishing Co. v. Lesher Communications, Inc., 169 Cal. App. 3d 865, 215 Cal. Rptr. 529, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2330 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

[867]*867Opinion

MERRILL, J.

Contestant and appellant Lesher Communications, Inc., appeals from a judgment establishing the Tri-Valley Herald as a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Pleasanton.

I.

Floyd Sparks is the president of respondent Bay Area Publishing Company and the publisher of a newspaper known as the Tri-Valley Herald. On February 23, 1983, Bay Area Publishing Company filed a verified petition seeking a judgment ascertaining and establishing the Tri-Valley Herald as a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Pleasanton pursuant to Government Code sections 6008 and 6020.1 Respondent sought such adjudication in order to qualify the newspaper for publishing legal notices in that jurisdiction.2

Section 6008 provides: “Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a newspaper is a ‘newspaper of general circulation’ if it meets the following criteria: [1f] (a) It is a newspaper published for the dissemination of local or telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character, which has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers and has been established and published at regular intervals of not less than weekly in the city, district, or judicial district for which it is seeking adjudication for at least three years preceding the date of adjudication, [f] (b) It has a substantial distribution to paid subscribers in the city, district, or judicial district in which it is seeking adjudication, [f] (c) It has maintained a minimum coverage of local or telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character of not less than 25 percent of its total inches during each year of the three-year period, [f] (d) It has only one principal office of publication and that office is in the city, district, or judicial district for which it is seeking adjudication. ,..[|] As used in this section: ... (2) ‘Published’ means issued from the place where the newspaper is sold to or circulated among the people and its subscribers during the whole of the three-year period. ” (Italics added.)

Section 6020 provides: “Whenever a newspaper desires to have its standing as a newspaper of general circulation ascertained and established, it may, by its publisher, manager, editor or attorney, file a verified petition [868]*868in the superior court of the county in which it is established, printed and published, setting forth the facts which justify such action.”

In its verified petition, respondent, in essence, averred that the Tri-Valley Herald met the section 6008 criteria in every particular. The petition was contested by appellant, the owner of a rival newspaper in the Pleasanton area, the Valley Times, which apparently has already been adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation in that jurisdiction. Appellant concedes that the Tri-Valley Herald meets the first three criteria set by section 6008, but claims that it failed to meet the fourth, i.e., “[i]t has only one principal office of publication and that office is in the city, district, or judicial district for which it is seeking adjudication.” (§ 6008, subd. (d).) A hearing on the matter was convened April 12, 1983.

At the hearing, the uncontroverted evidence established the following: the Tri-Valley Herald has been in existence under one name or another since 1874. It has operated under its current name since 1973. It is a “daily” newspaper which is published seven days a week. It has a total circulation of approximately 21,000, “virtually” all paid subscribers, 4,500 of which reside in Pleasanton. It is distributed to the residents of Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, Danville, Alamo and Diablo.

The newspaper has offices in Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, and Hayward. The Pleasanton office is the newspaper’s distribution center from which the newspaper is circulated. It is the home of the newspaper’s circulation manager and its accounting personnel for circulation and “virtually all” "of its circulation staff (some 50 employees). The site consists of a physical plant, a warehouse and a parking area. In addition to the circulation department, the plant houses the newspaper’s sports department as well as a display and classified advertising department. The warehouse stores all of the newspaper’s preprinted inserts which are ultimately inserted into the paper at the Pleasanton facility prior to circulation. The parking area accommodates all of the newspaper’s delivery vehicles. Approximately 65 of the newspaper’s 100 to 120 employees work at the Pleasanton office.

The Tri-Valley Herald’s Livermore office houses most of the newspaper’s department managers and has departments for display and classified advertising, editorial and accounting.

The newspaper’s smallest office in Danville is comprised of editorial, display and classified advertising departments.

The Tri-Valley Herald’s publisher’s office is in Hayward. Most “senior department heads” are located in this office. The newspaper is printed in Hayward.

[869]*869Based on this evidence, the trial court on June 3, 1983, granted respondent’s petition and adjudicated the Tri-Valley Herald a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Pleasanton pursuant to section 6008. In its statement of decision the court said: “The legal basis for the court’s decision is: Legislative intent in enacting Government Code [§ 6008] in 1974 was to provide alternative, liberalized standards (from Government Code 6000 and 6004.5) of general circulation adjudication, to the end that the widest possible circulation of legal notices to those concerned and affected could occur.

“Section 6008 (Government Code) did not define ‘principal office of publication.’ It is the opinion of this Court that the controlling words are ‘of publication’. Section 6008 recognized the modern day mechanics of news dissemination. The Court is of the further opinion that the functions of TriValley Herald performed at Pleasanton meet the criteria and intent of Government Code 6008.”

This appeal followed.

II.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in designating the Tri-Valley Herald a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Pleasanton based on section 6008, subdivision (d). Appellant contends that the Tri-Valley Herald’s Pleasanton office does not qualify as a principal office of publication under the statute because in terms of administration and control, writing, editorial and generally creating the newspaper, the principal office of publication is either Hayward or Livermore. We disagree.

The issue is one of first impression for this court. It turns on the interpretation of section 6008, subdivision (d), and the words “principal office of publication.” The words themselves do not give us the answer. Accordingly, we look elsewhere for guidance, keeping in mind that our primary function is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature in enacting the statute so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (See Hogya v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 122 [142 Cal.Rptr. 325].)

Preliminarily, we note the Legislature’s historical purpose in regulating the type of newspaper which can publish legal notices. As stated by our Supreme Court: “The very purpose of requiring the publication of official notices is to inform the people concerning proceedings of a public nature for their general welfare.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Tri-Valley Herald
169 Cal. App. 3d 865 (California Court of Appeal, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 Cal. App. 3d 865, 215 Cal. Rptr. 529, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-area-publishing-co-v-lesher-communications-inc-calctapp-1985.