Dear Harvey: You Are the Spark that Started the #MeToo Movement

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

Joanna L. Grossman, law professor at SMU Dedman School of Law, reviews how disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein started the #MeToo movement. Grossman details the origins of the #MeToo movement, particularly Weinstein’s role, and describes how Weinstein’s despicable behavior helped to illuminate and begin to address sexual misconduct not only by individuals, but throughout entire industries.

Read More

Blizzard Energy, Inc. v. Schaefers

Docket: B290492(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 13, 2020

Judge: Kenneth R. Yegan

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to (1) vacate entry of a $3.825 million Kansas judgment, and (2) post a $5,737,500 undertaking to stay enforcement of the sister-state judgment. The court held that, based on the doctrines of res judicata and issue preclusion, defendant was precluded from arguing that Blizzard was guilty of misconduct or that the Santa Barbara Superior Court was misled when it dismissed the 2015 action for breach of oral agreement, conversion, and accounting. The court also held that defendant's argument that the trial court erred in ordering him to post a $5,737,500 undertaking to stay enforcement of the judgment was without merit. The court explained that the superior court has broad discretion in fashioning the terms and conditions of a Sister State Money Judgment Act stay order, and there was no abuse of discretion in this case.

People v. M.B.

Docket: B295284(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 13, 2020

Judge: Kenneth R. Yegan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, does not apply to a mandatory minimum juvenile restitution fine. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court's order requiring M.B. to pay a $100 restitution fine does not violate his due process rights. To the extent that Dueñas purports to state a rule of California criminal procedure, the court questioned whether the Court of Appeal, as opposed to the Supreme Court, has the authority to do so. The court explained that it was not bound by a sister appellate court opinion and it was obligated to follow the California Constitution, Article 6, 13. Therefore, the court concluded that a $100 mandatory juvenile restitution fine did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

People v. Parker

Docket: B294553(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 13, 2020

Judge: Tangeman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The treatment during an extension of a prisoner's custodial time to complete a psychiatrist's evaluation may be included in the required 90 days of treatment under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (MDO Act). In this case, the Attorney General appealed from the trial court's order finding that defendant did not meet the criteria to be treated as an MDO because he did not receive 90 days of treatment before his scheduled parole date. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Attorney General's contention that treatment during the additional 45-day custody period authorized by the Board of Parole Hearings under Penal Code 2963 should have counted toward the 90 days of treatment required by section 2962, subdivisions (c) and (d)(1). Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's order vacating the Board's MDO determination.