宜宾冰点脱毛最好的医院宜宾眼角色斑,宜宾埋线双眼皮到哪个医院,宜宾专业硅胶隆胸,宜宾玻尿酸的注射,宜宾好脱毛医院,宜宾有隆鼻专家吗,宜宾海薇玻尿酸

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - Ride hailing company Lyft announced a partnership with San Diego's Fashion Valley today to establish dedicated pick-up and drop-off zones at the mall.The partnership creates six official Lyft Zones that will make it easier for drivers to find riders in areas of the shopping center that are less congested, company officials said. Using the zones will also give riders access to special discounts, according to Lyft.``Transportation can be a challenge when it comes to shopping at busy malls,'' Lyft San Diego Market Manager Hao Meng said. ``The introduction of Lyft Zones at Fashion Valley Mall will offer shoppers a seamless door-to-door solution that enhances their overall ridesharing experience.''The six Lyft Zones around the mall are adjacent to Verizon Wireless, the Nordstrom eBar, So Sushi, JC Penney, the AMC Fashion Valley 18 theater and Forever 21. The company is encouraging the use of the new Lyft Zones by offering 20% off two rides to or from the shopping center through June 8 when riders use the code ``LyftFVLaunch.''``Ridesharing is in great demand, and we're excited to offer this convenience to locals and tourists who want to visit our popular shopping center,'' said Fashion Valley Marketing Director Arianne Cousin. 1267

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - San Diego Loyal SC announced today it will forfeit the point it received from its 1-1 tie with LA Galaxy II because of a racial slur directed at a Black SD Loyal player.LA Galaxy II defender Omar Ontiveros used the slur in the 71st minute of Wednesday's 1-1 tie at Dignity Health Sports Park in Carson, according to USL Championship, which suspended Ontiveros Friday for six games.Multiple officials, LA Galaxy II coaching staff and players were in the area, several of whom later acknowledged hearing the exchange, according to SD Loyal.Ontiveros was not disciplined by LA Galaxy II coaching staff or referees. SD Loyal coaching staff did not hear about the incident until the game was over.None of the facts in the investigation of the incident were disputed by any of the involved parties, according to the league.SD Loyal players believe they should have walked off the field to protest the lack of discipline, according to the team. ``We don't even want to recognize being a part of a match where these types of actions take place,'' said SD Loyal Chairman Andrew Vassiliadis. ``The Loyal in our name is symbolic of the diversity in our community and as a club we will not stand for this.''SD Loyal's statement did not include the name of the player the slur was directed, but did say the Galaxy scored the tying goal after he was sent off for a second yellow card.Midfielder Elijah Martin was the only SD Loyal player to receive two yellow cards Wednesday.With SD Loyal shorthanded because of Martin's ejection -- a team may not replace an ejected player -- Alejandro Alvarado Jr. scored the tying goal one minute into stoppage time.Forfeiting the point from the tie could jeopardize SD Loyal's chances of reaching the playoffs in the Division II men's soccer league. The top two teams in each of the league's eight groups qualify for the playoffs.The tie gave SD Loyal 23 points on a 6-4-5 record, one more than Galaxy II (7-5-1) and two ahead of Orange County SC (6-4-3) in the race for second place in Group B.SD Loyal has one game remaining the regular season, Galaxy II and Orange County SC three each.Ontiveros received a red card in the eighth minute of stoppage time, resulting in an automatic one-game suspension. It will be added to the six-game suspension he received from the league.The suspension will begin with Saturday's game against Las Vegas Lights FC and will include the remaining two games of the Galaxy II's regular season and any postseason games.Should any games remain on the suspension, they would be applied to the start of the 2021 USL Championship season.Ontiveros could receive additional punishment from Galaxy II, the reserves team of the Los Angeles Galaxy of Major League Soccer. 2745

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - San Diego County public health officials Sunday reported 373 new cases of COVID-19 and no new deaths, bringing the county's totals to 52,355 and the death toll remaining at 853.Officials are imploring San Diegans to maintain vigilance as positive case rates for the coronavirus continue to increase in the region."We are now concerned about the trends and we are concerned about the likelihood we could tip back to purple, Supervisor Nathan Fletcher said on Twitter today. The county is now in the red tier and the limit for the next tier is seven cases per 100,000 residents.Fletcher pointed to positive unadjusted case rates over six days (Oct. 11-16): 6.9 out of 100,000 residents, to 7.2 to 7.3 to 7.4 to 7.7 and 7.8.The county will be in the red, or "substantial," tier for at least another two weeks.But Fletcher and Public Health Officer Dr. Wilma Wooten held an emergency meeting Friday to "sound the alarm" as the future case rate appears to cross into the purple tier of the state's four-tier reopening system.With the state's monitoring system having a seven-day lag, the adjusted case rate of positive COVID-19 tests is 6.8 per 100,000 residents, up from 6.5 in the previous assessment.Nearly all non-essential indoor businesses would close under the purple tier."We are still in the red tier, but it is too close for comfort," Wooten said.The California Department of Public Health will update the county's data Tuesday.One new community outbreak was confirmed Saturday in a business. In the past seven days, 32 community outbreaks were confirmed, well above the trigger of seven or more in a week's time.A community outbreak is defined as three or more COVID-19 cases in a setting and in people of different households over the past 14 days.The county uses community outbreaks to get a larger sense of the pandemic locally, but the state does not include the statistic in its weekly report.Wooten said 95% of the county's cases were not related to a marked community outbreak, a clear indicator the illness has spread throughout the county.A total of 12,233 tests were reported to the county Saturday and the percentage of new laboratory-confirmed cases was 3%.The 14-day rolling average percentage of positive cases is 2.7%. The target is less than 8%.The seven-day daily average of tests is 10,573.Of 3,763 positive cases -- or 7.2% -- have required hospitalization through Saturday.Of 870 -- or 1.7% -- of all cases had to be admitted to an intensive care unit. 2504

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - Ralphs Grocery Co. has agreed to pay ,000 to settle a discrimination lawsuit alleging a courtesy clerk at its Point Loma store was denied a request to change her work schedule to accommodate her pregnancy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced Wednesday.The agency's lawsuit alleged the Ralphs store in question denied the employee's request to change her schedule, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and she was forced to quit as a result."The EEOC applauds Ralphs for agreeing to meaningful measures to protect pregnant employees in the workplace," said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District, whose jurisdiction includes San Diego County. "Frontline managers and supervisors must be educated on their obligation to properly handle accommodation requests for pregnancy-related medical conditions."In addition to the monetary relief, Ralphs has agreed to review and revise its policies and procedures on discrimination and provide training to employees and managers on federal anti-discrimination laws, with an emphasis on pregnancy discrimination and handling employees' accommodation requests for pregnancy-related medical conditions, according to the EEOC.Patricia Kane, acting director of the EEOC's San Diego's local office, said, "With the proper policies and procedures in place, employers can reasonably accommodate a pregnant employee. Employers should take stock and review their policies and practices to ensure they are compliant with federal law." 1606

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The California Supreme Court on Monday upheld the conviction of a death row inmate found guilty of hiring another man to shoot and kill his fiancee in Alpine 20 years ago.Michael William Flinner applied for a life insurance policy for 18-year-old Tamra Keck, then arranged for his former employee, Haron Ontiveros, to kill her on June 11, 2000, according to the ruling.The killing occurred shortly after Flinner met Keck and began dating her.According to the ruling, Flinner named himself as the beneficiary in the insurance policy, and falsely alleged Keck was an employee at his landscaping business whose death would cause him to suffer financially. Prosecutors alleged Flinner arranged for Ontiveros to meet with Keck at a gas station, then direct her to his car in a nearby cul-de-sac under the guise of having engine trouble. Once there, he shot Keck in the back of the head.Separate juries convicted Flinner and Ontiveros of murder and conspiracy and found true special circumstance allegations of killing for financial gain and lying in wait. Jurors recommended capital punishment for Flinner and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for Ontiveros.In the appeal, Flinner's counsel alleged his case was adversely affected by issues that included limited access to defense counsel, which was allegedly restricted by Flinner's relocation from the downtown San Diego jail to the jail in Vista. Flinner's defense attorney at the time claimed the distance to Vista and other limits on telephone communication would hurt the defense's preparation for trial. According to the ruling, the relocation was implemented because Flinner obtained the home addresses of the prosecutor and trial judge through another inmate.The state Supreme Court found the claims had no merit, as the trial court permitted increased communication between Flinner and the defense team at the defense's request.Another claim alleged juror misconduct by one panelist who sought to write a book about the trial. Flinner's counsel alleged her objectivity may have been compromised as a result. The state Supreme Court disagreed, though it noted the juror had made misconduct claims about other panelists, which the high court also ultimately ruled were unfounded. 2276