| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
S141519
|
Modification: People v. Hin
Trial court abused its discretion in admitting rap song from a CD found in defendant's bedroom during both the guilt and penalty phases. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
G. Liu | Apr. 28, 2025 |
|
24-10526
|
In re Global One Media, Inc.
Failure to file UCC financing statement in debtor's state of incorporation meant creditor's security interest in personal property was not perfected despite filing statements in states where property was located. |
Bankruptcy |
|
J. Brand | Apr. 25, 2025 |
|
G061412
|
Nazaryan v. Femtometrix
Civil litigation privilege did not bar breach of contract claim predicated on defendants' fraudulent characterization of settlement stock as non-employee compensation. |
Contracts, Tax |
|
M. Sanchez | Apr. 25, 2025 |
|
22-56181
|
Amended Opinion: The Ohio House LLC v. City of Costa Mesa
Living facility's disparate-treatment claim failed because the differential treatment imposed under the City's ordinances facially benefitted the protected class. |
Disability Discrimination |
|
D. Forrest | Apr. 25, 2025 |
|
23-55259
|
Amended Opinion: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Cashcall, Inc.
Consumer lender failed to argue constitutional right to jury trial violation when it proceeded with a bench trial in the first phase of trial. |
Consumer Law |
|
E. Miller | Apr. 25, 2025 |
|
24-241
|
Fallon v. Dudek
In social security context, district court properly refused revisiting its evaluation of medical experts' opinions settled in its first opinion and not part of remand proceedings under the law-of-the-case doctrine. |
Civil Procedure, Administrative Agencies |
|
D. Forrest | Apr. 25, 2025 |
|
24-2379
|
Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Mitchell
Because purported Ponzi scheme victims were not Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) member's customers, FINRA mandatory arbitration requirement was inapplicable. |
Securities, Arbitration |
|
M. Smith | Apr. 25, 2025 |
|
21-30266
|
U.S. v. Atherton
Order |
|
Apr. 25, 2025 | ||
|
S281599
|
People v. Antonelli
Defendants convicted of murder under the provocative act doctrine before 2009 are not categorically ineligible for resentencing relief under Penal Code Section 1172.6. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Groban | Apr. 25, 2025 |
|
S282968
|
New England Country Foods v. Vanlaw Food Products
Limitations on damages for willful injury to the person or property of another, as well as full releases, are prohibited by Civil Code Section 1668. |
Contracts, Remedies |
|
G. Liu | Apr. 25, 2025 |
|
B335445
|
Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group
To be a Private Attorneys General Act plaintiff, a private individual must seek to recover civil penalties on their own behalf for that violation and establish that the "individual claim" is timely. |
Employment Law |
|
B. Hoffstadt | Apr. 24, 2025 |
|
D084008
|
People v. Glass
In light of *People v. Patton*, case was remanded for defendant to provide additional facts to support his Penal Code Section 1172.6 resentencing request despite record supporting his ineligibility. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Castillo | Apr. 24, 2025 |
|
24-1025
|
Simon v. City and County of San Francisco
GPS location tracking and sharing for defendants granted pretrial release subject to electronic monitoring was not facially unconstitutional. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Bybee | Apr. 24, 2025 |
|
23-3858
|
Oscar v. Bondi
Haitian asylum-seeker who was a permanent resident in Chile prior to arriving in the U.S. was properly denied asylum as "firmly resettled". |
Immigration |
|
S. Ikuta | Apr. 24, 2025 |
|
24-1493
|
Newman v. Underhill
No Fourth Amendment violation where warrantless search of plaintiff's home was excused under the hot-pursuit exception. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
S. Graber | Apr. 24, 2025 |
|
C100925
|
People v. Roy
An order denying or dismissing a defendant-initiated request for resentencing under Penal Code Section 1172.1 is not appealable; absent a statutory obligation to act, the defendant's substantial rights are unaffected. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
P. Krause | Apr. 24, 2025 |
|
D083569
|
Romane v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Administrative hearing officer was not unconstitutionally advocating for defendant when its actions were part of the administrative hearing process's routine procedural undertakings. |
Administrative Agencies |
|
W. Dato | Apr. 24, 2025 |
|
B334408
|
Di Lauro v. City of Burbank
Although class claims alleged were barred, demurrer without leave to amend was not appropriate where complaint alleged facts constituting an individual cause of action under the California Public Records Act. |
Public Records Act |
|
C. Moor | Apr. 24, 2025 |
|
F086150
|
Diamond v. Schweitzer
Because signed release unequivocally released Defendants from all liability resulting from any injury related to the event, Plaintiff's injuries resulting from a third-party altercation was covered by the release. |
Torts, Contracts |
|
R. Peña | Apr. 23, 2025 |
|
B322799
|
Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc.
Plaintiffs' prospective, written waivers of their 30-minute meal period for shifts between five and six hours were valid and enforceable. |
Employment Law |
|
G. Martinez | Apr. 23, 2025 |
|
23-929
|
Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi
Undocumented immigrant's voluntary-departure deadline that fell on a weekend was extended to the next business day as in other federal statutes and regulations calculating deadlines in days. |
Immigration |
|
N. Gorsuch | Apr. 23, 2025 |
|
A168538
|
Modification: People v. K.D.
Regional center was required to provide report and proposed program for defendant eligible for developmental disability diversion so trial court could determine whether she would benefit from diversion. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
T. Brown | Apr. 23, 2025 |
|
B337874
|
Marino v. Rayant
Requests to seal civil harassment records were properly denied when defendant failed to meet California Rules of Court requirements for sealing records. |
Civil Procedure |
|
H. Bendix | Apr. 22, 2025 |
|
24A1007
|
A.A.R.P. v. Trump
Order |
|
Apr. 22, 2025 | ||
|
23-2944
|
Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services
Lack of geographic clarity regarding proposed agency action coupled with lack of local impact analysis meant agency did not adequately consider and describe environmental impacts of its predator damage management program. |
Environmental Law, Administrative Agencies |
|
M. Christen | Apr. 22, 2025 |
|
22-15815
|
Briskin v. Shopify, Inc.
Overruling prior precedent, expressly aimed conduct at the forum state for specific personal jurisdiction does not require differential targeting. |
Civil Procedure |
|
K. Wardlaw | Apr. 22, 2025 |
|
23-3694
|
City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom
Order |
|
Apr. 22, 2025 | ||
|
B330707
|
People v. Henderson
Applying law limiting superior courts' discretion passed after criminal conviction was final did not violate ex post facto principles because the ameliorative resentencing process could not hurt the defendant. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
G. Feuer | Apr. 21, 2025 |
|
A164679
|
Modification: People v. Jackson
Trial court committed prejudicial error in ruling Defendant met current requirements for felony murder when it primarily based its ruling on jury's special circumstance findings based on former instructions. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
T. Stewart | Apr. 21, 2025 |
|
B336778
|
Carachure v. City of Azusa
Parties seeking to challenge constitutionality of city's sewer and sanitation fees did not need to pay under protest and exhaust administrative remedies before bringing the action. |
Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
J. Segal | Apr. 17, 2025 |
For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390. To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com