> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Pavilions trial thrown out - URL: https://www.smdp.com/pavilions-trial-thrown-out/ - Published: 2003-05-01T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T02:06:38.000Z - Author: John Wood - Tags: Crime, Montana, #archive-import *Judge rules store didn’t overcharge customers as city attorney alleges* Criminal charges levied by City Hall against Pavilions on Montana Avenue was thrown out of court Wednesday, ending what was expected to be a two-day jury trial. A Malibu judge dismissed the case before defense attorneys presented any evidence to the 12-person jury. He ruled the city failed to build a strong enough argument for a conviction. The consumer protection unit of the Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office filed charges against Pavilions for allegedly charging more at the checkout register for “value plus” items than what was advertised on tags in the aisle. “It’s a very sad day for consumers,” said Deputy City Attorney Eda Suh after the mid-trial dismissal, a rare occurrence in criminal proceedings. “The law is pretty clear — if you post a price, you should be responsible for honoring that price.” Lawyers for Pavilions admitted tags are sometimes left up after the sale expires, but said it’s impossible to keep up with the 10,000 offers made every week. To cover that lapse, expiration dates are printed beneath sale prices, lawyers said. It’s illegal to charge more for an item than the posted price, according to state law. Because the tags include expiration dates, defense attorneys argued that the posted price is accurate. “As consumers, you’ve got a responsibility to read the whole thing,” said Fred Dibernardo, a lawyer for Vons Company, Inc., the owner of Pavillions. “The (city is) really irresponsible in filing these charges.” Lawyers for Pavilions asked Malibu Superior Court Judge Lawerence Mira to dismiss the city’s lawsuit immediately after Suh presented her case to the jury Tuesday. They described their request as a “so what?” response to the prosecution’s case, challenging the legal strength of the city’s argument. Suh responded to their request Wednesday morning. She said a common sense, literal interpretation of the law demands Pavilions be found guilty of overcharging customers. Judge Mira disagreed. He granted the dismissal, saying that once an offer expires, the normal price is technically the posted price and not the “value plus” discounted price, even if it’s still posted in the aisle. Judge Mira didn’t return phone calls Wednesday. It’s unclear why he waited until mid-trial to dismiss the case. The city cannot appeal Mira’s ruling. Suh said the next step is to push the state legislature for a stronger consumer protection law. In the meantime, county officials said all stores have a responsibility to their customers to keep sale tags current. “There’s an expectation when you go to shop that the price indicated is the price that’s going to be charged,” said Pastor Herrera, director of the L.A. County Department of Consumer Affairs. “It’s a good consumer practice and it’s a good business practice.” But Herrera said consumers need to be vigilant, too. Though the responsibility lands on both consumers and merchants, it’s the merchants who ultimately have more to lose, he added. “The majority of businesses want to get that customer back to that store,” Herrera said. “If they’re not truthful then the consumer always has an option to go elsewhere. “The marketplace is competitive and consumers do have a choice,” he added. Pavilions faced six counts of charging more than the posted price and one count of false advertising. If convicted, the grocery store could have been charged more than $20,000 in penalties and fines, officials said. The charges were filed after an October 2001 undercover investigation conducted by Larry Godwin, an L.A. County weights and measure official, revealed that Pavillions had overcharged him. Godwin, who purchased 20 items, was overcharged on six of them by as much as $2.90 each — including Taglio Primo Brie cheese, Vons brand spaghetti, A&H Peroxicare toothpaste and Hungry Jack Waffles. Dibernardo said the store does its best to keep current with special offers. When customers do find discrepancies, the items are given away for free, he said. He maintained the store’s innocence and pointed to five other trials alleging similar infractions by government agencies that have been either tossed out or found in Vons’favor. Seven more criminal proceedings are currently pending in cities throughout Southern California. “The jury has spoken and they still don’t get it,” he said. “This is not a criminal violation, for God’s sake. Why are they trying this?” Suh disagrees and said Judge Mira’s ruling sets a dangerous legal precedent. “Stores are now going to be able to do exactly what the law protected against — which is leaving out old, expired signs — and not be held responsible for it,” she said. Surfer sentenced to anger management classes *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 1, 2003.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/050103.pdf?ref=smdp.com)