Latest 3 Cases: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center (Civil Procedure), People v. Cerda (Criminal Law), Constellation-F, LLC v. World Trading 23, ...

Dead Letter Office: What’s Left of the Impeachment Power After Trump’s Acquittal

DEAN FALVY

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, discusses what happens now, after Senate Republicans voted to acquit President Trump. Falvy predicts that (1) President Trump will be emboldened to commit further abuses of power, (2) future presidents will be less constrained by fear of impeachment, and (3) impeachment may become more routine as political practice and significantly less effective as a constitutional remedy.

Read More

Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

Docket: E068730(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 6, 2020

Judge: Slough

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Class Action, Labor & Employment Law

Temporary staffing agency FlexCare, LLC assigned Lynn Grande to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center (Eisenhower). According to Grande, during her employment at Eisenhower, FlexCare and Eisenhower failed to ensure she received her required meal and rest breaks, wages for certain periods she worked, and overtime wages. Grande was a named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against FlexCare brought on behalf of FlexCare employees assigned to hospitals throughout California. Her own claims were based solely on her work on assignment at Eisenhower. FlexCare settled with the class, including Grande, and Grande received $162.13 for her injuries, plus a class representative incentive bonus of $20,000. Grande executed a release of claims, and the trial court entered a judgment incorporating the settlement agreement. About a year later, Grande brought a second class action alleging the same labor law violations, this time against Eisenhower, who was not a party to the previous lawsuit. FlexCare intervened in the action asserting Grande could not bring the separate lawsuit against Eisenhower because she had settled her claims against them in the prior class action. The trial court held a trial narrowed to questions as to the propriety of the lawsuit, and ruled Eisenhower was not a released party under the settlement agreement and could not avail itself of the doctrine of res judicata because the hospital was neither a party to the prior litigation nor in privity with FlexCare. Eisenhower petitioned for a petition for a writ of mandate and FlexCare appealed the trial court’s interlocutory order. The Court of appeal concurred with the trial court on grounds that Eisenhower and FlexCare were not in privity, preventing Eisenhower from blocking Grande’s claims under the doctrine of res judicata, and Eisenhower was not a released party under the settlement agreement. Therefore the appellate court denied mandamus relief.

People v. Cerda

Docket: B232572(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 7, 2020

Judge: Hanasono

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendants were convicted of one count of murder and twenty-three counts of attempted premeditated murder with gang and firearm enhancements. While defendants' appeals were pending, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437, which amended the laws related to malice and accomplice liability for murder. The Legislature also enacted Senate Bill No. 620, which gave trial courts discretion to strike or dismiss certain firearm enhancements. On remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal vacated the January 23, 2015 nonpublished opinion. In the published portion of the opinion, the court discussed why the evidence was sufficient to support the kill zone theory of liability. The court held that substantial evidence supported defendants' intent to kill everyone within the respective kill zones at the Katrina Place and Morning Circle shootings.

Constellation-F, LLC v. World Trading 23, Inc.

Dockets: B293033(Second Appellate District) , B293883(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 7, 2020

Judge: Wiley

Areas of Law: Landlord - Tenant, Real Estate & Property Law

This case arose when Constellation filed an unlawful detainer action against World Trading, which Constellation then converted to a damages action against World Trading and World Tech Toys for breach of contract. Constellation sought damages for past-due rent, late fees, interest, failure to maintain and repair, costs incurred by not being able to use the premises, and holdover rent. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by ruling that the commercial holdover provision was an unlawful penalty. Rather, the commercial holdover provision was valid and Constellation was entitled to enforce it against World Trading. The court upheld the trial court's finding that World Tech was not jointly and severally liable as an alter ego of World Trade and remanded Constellation's estoppel and agency arguments for the trial court to decide. The court directed the trial court to include the $1,000 sanctions in the final judgment. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment and dismissed World Trading and World Tech's cross-appeal.