By now you know about what we’ve been calling the Darwin’s Dilemma Exhibition Case. The actual case name is American Freedom Alliance v. California Science Center, California Science Center Foundation, Jeffrey Rudolph, et al. It’s sometimes abbreviated AFA v. CSC.
This is a lawsuit filed by the American Freedom Alliance (AFA), claiming that the California Science Center (CSC or “Science Center”) violated both the First Amendment and a contract to rent its theater when it canceled a screening of Darwin’s Dilemma. The AFA is an outfit promoting “the controversy” about evolution — in the interest of what they call “academic freedom.” The film they wanted to show includes appearances by Richard von Sternberg, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyer, all “senior fellows” with the Discovery Institute (the “Discoveroids”), claiming that the Cambrian “explosion” is evidence of intelligent design.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has many of the court pleadings available online. See: American Freedom Alliance v. California Science Center et al.
Last week we posted “Darwin’s Dilemma” Case: They’re Settling! We informed you that hearings on pending motions had been continued while the parties drafted a settlement agreement.
Now the NCSE archive has a new pleading: It’s a Court Order on a Status Conference, and it’s only one page. Here’s the essence of what it says:
Cause called for hearing.
The parties have informed the Court that the case has settled.
The Court orders the above-entitled action dismissed forthwith pursuant to 664.6 CCP. The Court will retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement.
If you’re curious about “664.6 CCP” we found it for you: California Code – Section 664.6. It just says that the court can do what it’s doing here. “CCP” seems to stand for Code of Civil Procedure.
There aren’t any news stories about this yet, and nothing on it has been posted at the Discoveroids’ website — although they were all a-flutter about the Science Center’s “viewpoint discrimination” when the case was getting started. We didn’t see anything relevant at the plaintiff’s website either.
We suspect that some serious disappointment for the creationists — including the Discoveroids — is contained within the court’s bland words, but we’re not certain.
It’s not unusual to see litigation settlement agreements get filed with the court. That’s not happening here — at least we don’t see it yet. Maybe the parties are keeping the settlement terms confidential, or maybe we’ll learn all about it in due course. We’ll keep you advised.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
It’s not unusual to see litigation settlement agreements get filed with the court. That’s not happening here — at least we don’t see it yet.
The fact that the court is ‘retaining jurisdiction over enforcement,’ would seem to me to indicate that the parties would have to file it. If they didn’t, the court wouldn’t know what to enforce. So maybe it just hasn’t happened yet.
Of course we probably still won’t get to see what is in it; AFAIK court aren’t under any obligation to make such agreements public.
eric says:
I’m not sure. But the only two things I can think of that would require court enforcement in the future are: (1) somebody has to pay money; or (2) the Science Center has to show the movie (and maybe pay some money). There’s not much else to it, is there? Time will tell.
If the case was dismissed on the morning of the 3rd, then it would have been settled on the 2nd or before. If the settlement were in any way positive for the DI, it’s almost certain that Luskin or someone would issued a press release or blogged about it by now.
Anonymous says:
My post before this one referenced a pleading that said they reached a settlement “in principle” on 18 July, but they needed to put it in writing. There’s been plenty of time for the Discoveroids to blog about a favorable settlement. But if it’s confidential, that won’t happen.