Latest 5 Cases: Carlsbad Police Officers Assn. v. City of Carlsbad (Civil Procedure), Lowery v. Kindren Healthcare Operating, Inc. (Civil ...

Can Workers Tell Governors to Drop Dead? The Moral Authority to Defy Lockdowns

JOSEPH MARGULIES

In this second of a series of columns about the COVID-19 protests, Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies argues, with some caveats, that workers have the moral authority to reopen their businesses in order to sustain themselves. Margulies notes that while he is not advising anyone to disobey the law (and while he personally supports the lockdown orders), business owners facing the impossible decision whether to follow the law or sustain themselves and their families are morally justified in defying the stay-at-home orders.

Read More

Paid Labor: Eleventh Circuit Protects Rights of Pregnant Worker

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, CYNTHIA THOMAS CALVERT

Joanna L. Grossman, law professor SMU Dedman School of Law, and Cynthia Thomas Calvert, principal of Workforce 21C and a senior advisor for family responsibilities discrimination to the Center for WorkLife Law at UC Hastings, comment on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals by the Eleventh Circuit protecting the rights of a pregnant worker. Grossman and Calvert describe the lower court’s ruling and the appellate court’s decision reversing it, calling the decision “a step forward for the rights of pregnant women.”

Read More

Carlsbad Police Officers Assn. v. City of Carlsbad

Docket: D075723(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 18, 2020

Judge: Dato

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

Eight police officer associations (POAs) sought mandamus relief to prevent their respective agencies from disclosing certain records of police misconduct or use of force pursuant to a new law, Senate Bill No. 1421. (Stats. 2018, ch. 988, sec. 2.) Several media organizations and a civil rights group moved to intervene, and the trial court conditioned their participation on the interveners striking their requests to recover statutory attorney's fees. It later agreed with the interveners on the merits that Senate Bill No. 1421 required disclosure of pre-2019 police records. The interveners challenged the condition placed on their intervention. The Court of Appeal determined the scope of a court's power to limit intervention under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 was one of first impression in California, and concluded after review that although a trial court may place reasonable limits even as to intervention of right, the condition imposed here was unreasonable and amounted to an abuse of discretion. The order was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings to permit the interveners to seek reasonable attorney's fees against the POAs.

Lowery v. Kindren Healthcare Operating, Inc.

Docket: A153421A(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 18, 2020

Judge: Stuart R. Pollak

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Health Law, Personal Injury

Goros, age 92, filed suit alleging that Kindred Healthcare violated the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code 15600) by failing to timely obtain medical treatment for her after she suffered a stroke while a patient at their nursing home. After Goros’s death about two years later, her daughter substituted in as successor in interest and added a claim for wrongful death. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment, predicated on the exclusion of the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert on the issue of causation. The court of appeal affirmed. The plaintiff’s expert failed to provide any basis for his opinions and stated only that “his opinion is based on his experience and documented medical literature.” The plaintiff cites no evidence contradicting the court’s finding that her expert did not have the education or experience to render an opinion about the cause or treatment of Goros’s stroke, as required by Evidence Code section 720(a). Qualifications on a related subject matter are insufficient.

Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

Docket: A156095(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 18, 2020

Judge: Stuart R. Pollak

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The trial court had approved a stipulated protective order that authorizes a party to label documents produced in discovery Highly Confidential or Confidential and limits disclosure accordingly. In support of its opposition to Facebook's anti-SLAPP motion, Six4Three submitted a massive declaration by attorney Godkin with over 200 exhibits, many of which were copies of documents that Facebook had labeled Highly Confidential or Confidential. Six4Three filed a redacted, public version and lodged conditionally under seal an unredacted copy. Facebook then moved to seal the exhibits to the Godkin declaration that consisted of copies of documents that Facebook had designated confidential. The court continued the hearing on that motion then issued its order denying Facebook’s anti-SLAPP motion as untimely but granting that of the individual defendants. The resolution of neither motion depended on any of the contested exhibits. The court of appeal affirmed the order that denied Facebook's anti-SLAPP motion but reversed the order as to the individual defendants. In the interim, the trial court issued an order striking 182 exhibits, in whole or in part, based on irrelevance or on the improper submission of entire documents, and sealing 22 full exhibits and certain pages of four exhibits that were deposition transcripts. Six4Three filed a notice of appeal; media entities filed motions to unseal the documents submitted by Six4Three. The court of appeal dismissed; Six4Three is not “aggrieved” by the sealing order, so as to have standing to appeal it.

Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose

Docket: H047068(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 18, 2020

Judge: Nathan D. Mihara

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

In 2011, San Jose acquired the Willow Glen Railroad Trestle, constructed in 1922, planning to demolish the Trestle and replace it with a new steel truss pedestrian bridge. The city approved the project, adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code 21000), and found that the Trestle was not a historical resource. The Trestle was not listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Had it been listed, the city would have been statutorily mandated to consider it a historical resource. In 2017, the California State Historical Resources Commission approved the listing of the Trestle. In 2018, the city submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) a “Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration” for the project. The city's 2014 Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) had expired. CDFW signed the final SAA, finding that the project would not have any significant impacts on fish or wildlife “with the measures specified in the 2014 MND and the [SAA].” The Conservancy unsuccessfully sought judicial intervention. The court of appeal affirmed. The city’s actions in obtaining the 2018 SAA did not require supplemental environmental review; the approval of the MND in 2014 included approval of the SAA and obtaining the new SAA did not involve any “new discretionary approval.”

Estate of Eimers

Docket: B295609(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 18, 2020

Judge: Stratton

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

Where a trust beneficiary creates a will that gives away his trust shares without also specifically referring to the power of appointment as required by the trust, the court may not amend or reform that will to include a "specific reference" phrase so as to preserve the validity of the gift. The Court of Appeal held that reforming a will to conform to the testator's true intent is permissible if extrinsic evidence establishes that true intent. However, the court cannot do so in this case because reformation would achieve a work-around of the requirements of Probate Code sections 630, 631, and 632, effectively nullifying them. The court explained that these sections, taken together, do not excuse noncompliance. Therefore, the court affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend.