Bitter Charges in Shangri-La Hotel Trial

By MICHAEL CIEPLY

SANTA MONICA, Calif. - It was a sunny day on Monday at the Hotel Shangri-La, a much-restored art deco palace that likes to call itself “Hollywood's Oceanfront Hotel.”

Not so sunny were the proceedings nearby at the Santa Monica division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the Shangri-La and its owner, Tehmina Adaya, are the defendants in a California civil rights lawsuit now being tried before a jury.

The claim is one of anti-Semitism, something of a shocker, given the hotel's reputation as a hang-out for denizens of a movie industry that includes many Jews. And the charge is being fiercely disputed by the defendants - hence the jury trial, which is likely to continue through the week.

The suit arises from an incident on July 11, 2010, when young supporters of a nonprofit organization, the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, organized a pool party at the hotel through a promotional firm, Plati num Events, which for months had been collecting commissions from the Shangri-La for setting up similar gatherings.

In the middle of the party, the suit alleges, Ms. Adaya abruptly shut it down, claiming it was unauthorized.

On Monday, Scott Paletz, the promoter who runs Platinum Events - and one of the suit's plaintiffs - was on the stand. He testified to having spoken six or seven times at the gathering with a distressed hotel employee who, he said, apologized profusely for ending the party. But Ms. Adaya, the employee said, insisted it be halted, and “was acting out with anti-Semitism against the group,” as Mr. Paletz recalled his words.

“It had to end, it had to end,” Mr. Paletz recalled the employee telling him. “If Ms. Adaya's investors,” who are Muslims, found out about the pro-Israeli event, “they would cut her off,” Mr. Paletz testified being told. Another employee, said Mr. Paletz, told him that hol ding the event at the Shangri-La “was like bringing the Bloods and the Crips together.” The order to end the event, Mr. Paletz said, had been accompanied by a particularly harsh epithet ordering the Jews out of the hotel.

“Being that I'm Jewish, it absolutely shocked me,” Mr. Paletz testified. “I felt really small.”

A lawyer for Ms. Adaya spent the late afternoon cross-examining Mr. Paletz, with an eye toward showing that he had never been authorized to book the event in the first place, and had peppered his testimony with errors and omissions. A plaintiffs' lawyer, meanwhile, presented evidence that Mr. Paletz and his Platinum events regularly booked events into the hotel with the cooperation of its employees, and were paid a commission on food and beverage sales.

The proceedings ended for the day without Ms. Adaya's lawyer cross-examining Mr. Paletz about the testimony regarding anti-Semitic attitudes and remarks; but the trial resumes and Tu esday, and the jury is likely to hear more before deliberations begin.