Bringing Home the Supply Chain

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JONATHAN F. HARRIS

NYU law professors Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan F. Harris describe how the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing the United States to confront the problem of unchecked globalization. Estreicher and Harris argue that once the pandemic subsides, U.S. policymakers should, as a matter of national security, mandate that a minimum percentage of essential supplies be manufactured domestically.

Read More

Unconstitutional Chaos: Abortion in the Time of COVID-19

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, MARY ZIEGLER

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler discuss the abortion bans implemented in several states in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Grossman and Ziegler explain why the bans are unconstitutional and comment on the connection between the legal challenges to those bans and the broader fight over abortion rights.

Read More

Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty etc.

Docket: D075561(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Dato

Areas of Law: Construction Law, Contracts, Government Contracts, Insurance Law

North Edwards Water District (the District) selected Clark Bros., Inc. (Clark) as its general or direct contractor on a public works project to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired subcontractor Crosno Construction (Crosno) to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. The subcontract contained a "pay-when-paid" provision that stated Clark would pay Crosno within a reasonable time of receiving payments from the District, but that this reasonable time "in no event shall be less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment . . . ." After Crosno completed most of its work, a dispute arose between the District and Clark halting the project. As Clark sued the District, Crosno sought to recover payments owed under the public works payment bond that Clark had obtained for the project. The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review involved Crosno's claim against the bond surety, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (Travelers). At issue was whether the pay-when-paid provision in Crosno's subcontract precluded Crosno from recovering under the payment bond while Clark's lawsuit against the District was pending. Relying on Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 15 Cal.4th 882 (1997), the trial court found the pay-when-paid provision here unenforceable because it affected or impaired Crosno's payment bond rights in violation of Civil Code section 8122. With the facts largely undisputed, the court granted Crosno's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in its favor for principal due plus prejudgment interest. Travelers argued the trial court misconstrued Wm. R. Clarke and erred in failing to enforce the pay-when-paid provision against the bond claim. After carefully considering the parties' arguments, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court's analysis and affirmed.

People v. Drayton

Docket: H046928(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Danner

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 1991, the Wards and their teenage daughter awoke and discovered four men, including Drayton, inside their house. Two were armed. One told the daughter he was going to rape her and placed a firearm inside her vagina. Drayton told the man not to do it. Drayton had a gun and held Mrs. Ward down during the robbery. Two others shot and killed Mr. Ward. Drayton and the others left without seeking help for the Wards. Drayton did not shoot Mr. Ward or threaten to rape the daughter. Drayton surrendered the next day. Drayton’s sole prior conviction was a misdemeanor; he had no reported history of violence. Drayton was sentenced to 29 years to life imprisonment. In 2019, Drayton sought resentencing under Penal Code 1170.95, declaring that he “was not a major participant ... or did not act with reckless indifference to human life.” Senate Bill 1437, effective January 1, 2019, restricted the circumstances under which a person can be liable for felony murder and enacted Penal Code 1170.95, which allows an individual, previously convicted of felony murder, to petition to have his murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced. The court of appeal directed the trial court to hold a hearing under section 1170.95(d) and to accept the assertions in the petition as true unless facts in the record conclusively refute them as a matter of law. If, accepting the petitioner’s assertions as true, he meets section 1170.95(a)'s requirements for relief, the court must issue an order to show cause. In assessing the prima facie showing, the trial court should not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations.