Law in the Time of Corona

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, LAWRENCE M. FRIEDMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Stanford law professor Lawrence M. Friedman discuss the implications of COVID-19 on the execution of wills and marriage. Grossman and Friedman argue that the COVID-19 crisis demonstrates how quickly and universally Americans rush into court, demanding from judges legal solutions to ethical, political, and social issues.

Read More

Lopez v. Escamilla

Docket: B300439(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 4, 2020

Judge: Arthur Gilbert

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure

In petitioning the trial court to amend a judgment to add an alter ego defendant, the plaintiff may proceed by either a motion in the original action, or by complaint in an independent action on the judgment. In a previous action, plaintiff recovered a judgment for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against Magnolia Home Loans. In this case, plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging that defendant incorporated Magnolia Home Loans. The trial court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the theory that the only proper procedure for naming a person an alter ego is by motion in the original action. The Fifth Circuit reversed and held that it does not matter whether the petition alleging defendant is an alter ego of the corporation is labeled a complaint or a motion, or whether the petition is assigned a case number different from the underlying action. Rather, the substantive question is whether defendant is, in fact, an alter ego. Furthermore, the court held that the complaint is not barred by the statute of limitations.

In re I.A.

Docket: B296549(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 4, 2020

Judge: Tangeman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

Where a juvenile court vacates its true finding on a generic murder allegation and redesignates it as a finding on an uncharged target offense, and does so before a minor has had the opportunity to contest the court's findings or orders, the minor may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of the redesignated offense on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's decision sustaining the allegations that I.A. possessed a concealable firearm and committed vandalism. Therefore, the court reversed the juvenile court's findings, vacating the jurisdiction and disposition order and dismissing the Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition.

People v. Torres

Docket: B295043(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 4, 2020

Judge: Wiley

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After the trial court admitted a witness's former testimony, the Court of Appeal applied People v. Roldan (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 969, 975–985, and reversed. Roldan held that, before invoking the former testimony exception, prosecutors should react appropriately to the impending deportation risk by following four steps: alert the defense to the risk; videotape the preliminary hearing testimony; use judicial measures to try to delay deportation; and consider an array of other specific measures. In this case, the prosecution conceded that prosecutors were simply unaware of Roldan and did not comply with it. The court held that Roldan controls the court's analysis because the facts about prosecutorial diligence are weaker here than they were in Roldan, where the appellate court held for the defense. In this case, the record before deportation is of prosecutorial inaction where the prosecution's brief in this court admits the investigating officer did not do anything to ensure that the witness would not be deported, nor is there other evidence of prosecutorial efforts to delay the witness's departure or to videotape his testimony at the preliminary hearing.

In re S.O.

Docket: E073131(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 4, 2020

Judge: Art W. McKinster

Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law

Appellant S.O. was subject to dual status supervision as both a dependent and a ward of the court; San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) was designated as the lead agency.In 2019, the juvenile court dismissed the dependency proceedings, effectively modifying dual status jurisdiction to single status jurisdiction. S.O. appealed, contending the court abused its discretion in modifying jurisdiction by failing to obtain a “section 241.1 dual status report addressing the advisability of a modification to single jurisdiction under” Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and, thus, failing to make “a reasoned determination” of his best interests. CFS argued “dismissal was warranted under section 241.1(d) and (e),” “dual status was no longer authorized,” and implicit findings supported dismissal of the section 300 dependency petition. After review, the Court of Appeal concurred with CFS, rejected S.O.’s contentions and affirmed.