Latest 4 Cases: Kec v. Superior Court (Arbitration & Mediation), Pico Neighborhood Assoc. v. City of Santa Monica (Civil Rights), People v. Soto ...

A Modest Proposal: A Heartbeat Bill for Those Who Don’t Wear Masks

MARCI A. HAMILTON

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton draws upon a strategy used by anti-abortion advocates in suggesting a way to encourage (or coerce) more people into wearing masks to avoid the spread of COVID-19. Hamilton proposes requiring persons who opt not to wear a mask in public (1) to watch, on a large screen, an adult's beating heart for 30 seconds, and (2) to be read a statement about how their decision unreasonably endangers others.

Read More

Kec v. Superior Court

Docket: G058119(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 9, 2020

Judge: Raymond J. Ikola

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law

The parties’ arbitration agreement purported to waive class actions and any “other representative action” (the representative waiver). There was no dispute that this representative waiver was broad enough to cover a Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) claim, and was thus invalid. The arbitration agreement went on to provide that the provision containing the class action and representative waiver was not modifiable nor severable. The arbitration agreement also contained a provision that if the representative waiver was found to be invalid, “the Agreement becomes null and void as to the employee(s) who are parties to that particular dispute,” the so-called "blow-up provision." Plaintiff Nichole Kec brought individual, class, and PAGA claims against defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Reynolds American Inc., and three individual employees at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, alleging in essence, that she and others were misclassified as exempt employees, resulting in various violations of the Labor Code. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Reynolds American Inc., moved to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims except the PAGA claim. The court granted the motion. The court reasoned: (1) because defendants had not asked the court to rule on the enforceability of the representative waiver, it had not found the representative waiver invalid, and thus the blow-up provision had not been triggered; and (2) the blow-up provision could apply only to the attempted waiver of the PAGA claim, not to the arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims under the Labor Code. The Court of Appeal concluded defendants could not selectively enforce the arbitration agreement in a manner that defeated its goals. "Had the parties intended to permit defendants to proceed with arbitration notwithstanding an invalid waiver of representative claims, they would have simply made that provision severable, like every other term in the agreement. But that is not what they did. Instead, by specifically making section 5 not severable, the agreement evinces an intent not to allow defendants to selectively enforce the arbitration agreement." The Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to vacate its order granting arbitration, and to enter a new order denying the motion in its entirety.

Pico Neighborhood Assoc. v. City of Santa Monica

Docket: B295935(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 9, 2020

Judge: Wiley

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the City of Santa Monica's system of at-large voting to elect its City Council discriminated against Latinos. The trial court agreed and ordered the City to switch to district-based voting. The Court of Appeal reversed and entered judgment for the City, holding that the City violated neither the California Voting Rights Act nor the Constitution. In this case, the City correctly notes that plaintiff offered no valid proof of dilution in order to prove that the City's at-large method impaired Latinos' ability to elect candidates of their choice or to influence the outcome of an election as a result of the dilution of Latino voting rights. Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to prove that the City adopted or maintained its system for the purpose of discriminating against minorities.

People v. Soto

Docket: H047581(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 9, 2020

Judge: Danner

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Soto was convicted of second-degree murder in 1996. The court of appeal affirmed. He unsuccessfully moved to vacate his murder conviction and be resentenced under Penal Code section 1170.95, citing Senate Bill No. 1437, which made statutory changes effective January 1, 2019. Soto claimed that he was convicted as an aider and abettor of murder on a natural and probable consequences theory and could not be convicted of murder on that basis under current law. Soto’s appointed counsel filed a brief that raised no issues. Soto filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. The court of appeal requested supplemental briefing on whether the trial court erred in not issuing an order to show cause where its order denying Soto’s petition relied on information drawn from the record of conviction and, if so, whether any error was harmless. The court subsequently affirmed the denial of Soto’s petition to vacate his murder conviction. The jury instructions given at his trial conclusively demonstrate as a matter of law that he was not convicted of murder under a natural and probable consequences theory or of felony murder. Soto was convicted as a direct aider and abettor to second-degree murder.

Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC v. City of Redondo Beach

Dockets: B291111(Second Appellate District) , B294659(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 9, 2020

Judge: Lavin

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

In a consolidated opinion, the Court of Appeal decided two appeals currently pending related to a proposed waterfront development project in the City of Redondo Beach. In the published portion of the opinion, the court held that the Developer has obtained vested rights against the City under Government Code section 66498.1 and those rights vested before the passage of Measure C. The court rejected the Residents' subsidiary argument that the vested rights issue is not ripe for decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Developer.