Latest 6 Cases: Shayan v. Spine Care and Orthopedic Physicians (Civil Procedure), California v. Roles (Constitutional Law), People v. Harper ...

Senate Secrecy: Can the Votes of Senators on President Trump’s Impeachment be Withheld from the Voting Public?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone evaluate the suggestion made by some that the votes of senators on President Trump’s impeachment can and should be private. Amar and Mazzone argue that while the text of the Constitution alone does not foreclose secrecy, structural, prudential, and logistical considerations strongly disfavor a secret vote on the matter.

Read More

Shayan v. Spine Care and Orthopedic Physicians

Docket: B293857(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 9, 2020

Judge: Wiley

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

After plaintiff filed an interpleader action to resolve claims about a disputed $19,365 sum, two claimants and defendants failed to appear after having received notice of the trial date. The trial court adjudicated the case on the merits and entered judgment. Claimants then filed a motion for relief under the mandatory provision of subdivision (b) of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of claimants' motion, holding that the provision for mandatory relief does not apply absent an actual default, default judgment or dismissal. In this case, the trial court decided the case on the merits.

California v. Roles

Docket: C086645(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 8, 2020

Judge: Ronald B. Robie

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Bradley Roles was found guilty by jury of ten counts of making criminal threats (nine counts against Jennifer B. and one count against Heather S.), one count of stalking, and one count of making annoying phone calls. Defendant appealed contending: (1) he could be convicted of only one criminal threats charge against Jennifer B. because she heard all the threats at the same time and experienced a single period of sustained fear; (2) he could not be convicted of a criminal threats charge against Heather S. because there was insufficient evidence to show he intended for Jennifer B. to relay the threats to Heather S.; (3) the criminal threats punishment should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654; and (4) he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeal agreed with defendant’s first three contentions but disagreed with the fourth. Accordingly, the Court reversed the nine criminal threats convictions and stayed the punishment on the remaining criminal threats conviction. In all other respects, judgment was affirmed.

People v. Harper

Docket: A152284(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 9, 2020

Judge: Miller

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

A jury found Harper (who had been charged with five codefendants) guilty of conspiracy to commit human trafficking (Pen. Code 182(a)(1), 236.1 (b) and multiple kidnapping and sex offenses. Harper argued that the conduct underlying the kidnapping and kidnapping-for-extortion charges could be prosecuted under the more specific statute, Penal Code 266a, which prohibits “tak[ing] any person against his or her will and without his or her consent . . . for the purpose of prostitution.” Harper cited the “Williamson rule,” which holds that if a general statute includes the same conduct as a special statute, courts infer that the Legislature intended the conduct to be prosecuted only under the special statute. Alternatively, Harper argued his conduct did not constitute extortion and that the jury instruction, CALCRIM No. 1202, was an incorrect statement of law. The court of appeal held that the Williamson rule did not bar the convictions. Kidnapping for extortion contemplates more culpable conduct than is required for a section 266a violation. Harper’s conduct constituted extortion; Harper ultimately wanted money from forced prostitution services. Although the challenged jury instruction contained an incorrect statement, it did not contribute to the verdict. There was sufficient evidence of kidnapping. The court struck certain enhancements as improperly imposed.

Dignity Health v. Local Initiative Health Care Authority of Los Angeles County

Docket: B288886(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 9, 2020

Judge: Bendix

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, a managed care health plan that provides health coverage to low-income individuals under Medi-Cal. The court held that the legislative history of Welfare and Institutions Code section 14105.28, along with the statement of legislative intent within the statute itself, indicate that the Legislature intended the APR-DRG (All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group) rates to apply to out-of-network inpatient poststabilization services under Medi-Cal. Consistent with the legislature's intent, the court interpreted the phrase "managed care inpatient days" to refer to services provided pursuant to a managed care contract, that is, in-network services.

O.C. v. Super. Ct.

Docket: G058416(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 8, 2020

Judge: Dunning

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

O.C., a 14-year-old refugee from Guatemala, asked the superior court to make the required Special immigrant juvenile findings, a necessary first step under the federal immigration law that allowed abandoned, unaccompanied minors living in the United States to apply for status as permanent legal residents (SIJ findings). A mandatory Judicial Council form was created for this purpose. Items 4(b), 5, and 6 on the form required the superior court to detail its findings, citing California law. The Court of Appeal determined the superior court failed to cite California statutory or case law in items 4(b) and 6, and did not check the box in item 5 to indicate O.C. could not reunify with her mother, who was deceased. Treating O.C.'s appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate, the Court of Appeal granted the petition and ordered the probate court to vacate its SIJ findings and issue new findings for items 4(b) and 6 of the mandatory Judicial Council form baed on state law, as proposed by O.C. and in compliance with federal rules and regulations.

Bingener v. City of Los Angeles

Docket: B291112(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 9, 2020

Judge: Barbara J.R. Jones

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

An employee of the city struck and killed a pedestrian while the employee, driving his own car, was driving to work. On the day of the accident, the employee was driving to his workplace at the Hyperion Treatment Plant, a job that did not require him to be in the field or use his personal automobile for his employment. The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that the coming and going rule insulated it from liability. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the city, holding that plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient facts upon which they could establish a triable issue of fact on their claim that the employee's accident was a foreseeable event arising from or relating to his employment for the city at its water plant laboratory. In this case, nothing about the enterprise for which the city employed the employee made his hitting a pedestrian while commuting a foreseeable risk of this enterprise. Therefore, the going and coming rule was created for this type of situation and was applicable in this case, precluding plaintiffs' claim of vicarious liability against the city.