On remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal holds that substantial evidence supports USC's determination that plaintiff engaged in intimate partner violence warranting expulsion from the university. The decision also holds that it is not a due process violation for a private association, such as a university, to follow the inquisitorial model (with a single person or body… Read More
California Rule of Court 3.1322 requires that a motion to strike be brought with a demurrer or within 30 days after service of complaint and requires a notice of a motion to strike "quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense." This decision… Read More
The Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over a claim against a California superior court, which is an arm of the state government or against the judges of that court, acting in their judicial capacity. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) offers no end around the Eleventh Amendment immunity. A court cannot be sued in an… Read More
A civil harassment injunction entered in favor of an attorney for one of a divorcing couple against the attorney for the other spouse was reversed. Insofar as the injunction was based on emails that defendant sent plaintiff about the divorce, the emails didn't threaten violence and so were protected First Amendment speech which could not be considered in support of… Read More
A forum selection clause in defendant corporation's Delaware by-laws selecting the Delaware Chancery Court as the forum for any shareholder disputes was unenforceable in California state court because there is no right to a jury trial in Delaware Chancery Court so the forum selection clause operated as a pre-suit waiver of the constitutional right to a jury trial which cannot… Read More
Applying the test for conduct in furtherance of First Amendment activities stated in Filmon.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, this decision holds that while the production of a TV program about rich Asian-Americans' adjustment to life in LA was an exercise of constitutionally protected expression, the wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint--denying the plaintiff a role in producing… Read More
The Judicial Council had constitutional authority to adopt Emergency Rule 9 extending statutes of limitation by six months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Governor Newson's executive order granting the Judicial Council authority to adopt that rule was itself authorized by Gov. Code 8571. Read More
A news organization sent UC Irvine a records request under the California Public Records Act for documents about a professor's postpublication communications about her articles which UCI had withdrawn from publication due to concerns about plagarism and accuracy of citations. The professor filed this lawsuit to prevent UCI from producing documents in response to the request. Held, the suit arose… Read More
The trial court erred and denied defendant due process by sua sponte changing the plaintiff (from the HOA to its manager) and cause of action (from CCP 527.8 to 527.6) at the end of trial without prior notice. On the other hand, the trial court also erred in holding that 527.8 (workplace violence prevention) did not apply when threats were… Read More
A private university must comply with the common law doctrine of fair procedure by providing accused students with notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, but the university is not required to provide accused students the opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine the accuser and other witnesses at a live hearing with the accused student in… Read More
Oregon's wiretapping statute violates the First Amendment and is unenforceable. It is a content-based regulation of speech since it excepts from its scope police recordings of conversations in which the policeman is a party and is performing official duties. The law doesn't meet strict scrutiny because it is too broad, banning audio or visual recording on any conversation without consent--thus,… Read More
The First Amendment bars Colorado from applying its law banning discrimination in places of public accommodation to a person whose business is creating websites to celebrate and document the couple's wedding. The website designer's collaborative effort with the couple to create a website that celebrates the story of their marriage is pure speech, not commercial speech, and it is speech… Read More
True threats are not protected by the First Amendment. True threats are “serious expressions conveying that a speaker means to “commit an act of unlawful violence.” This decision holds that to prosecute a defendant for making a true threat, a state need only prove that the defendant was reckless in consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct… Read More
The county's sale of plaintiff's condo at a tax sale to collect delinquent taxes plaintiff owed. The sale netted a sum greater than the taxes owed. The county kept the surplus sale proceeds. That was a taking of plaintiff's property that violated the Fifth Amendment even though state law allowed the county to keep the surplus. To determine the scope… Read More
Defendant didn't infringe on plaintiff's First Amendment rights by restricting him from talking to potential witnesses and other of defendant's employees about plaintiff's alleged transgressions while defendant conducted an investigation of those matters. Plaintiff was not prevented from speaking about matters of public concern, but only from discussing his own alleged violation of defendant's policies—a matter of private, personal concern. Read More
When an Anti-SLAPP defendant lodges a factual challenge, district courts may properly consider extrinsic evidence in evaluating whether a defendant has met her prima facie burden under either step of the Anti-SLAPP analysis. If a defendant moves to strike “on purely legal arguments,” courts must analyze the motion under Rules 8 and 12, but where a defendant asserts “a factual… Read More
This decision holds that the complaint alleged a viable claim under CCP 526a to enjoin Orange County's program for collection of DNA samples from persons accused of misdemeanors on the ground that as applied it violated the accused's rights to privacy, counsel and due process. Though Orange County had the accused misdemeanants sign forms waiving those rights, the complaint alleged… Read More
A taxpayer has standing to sue under CCP 526a to challenge a government program on the ground it is unconstitutional either on its face or as applied, at least if the as-applied challenge is broadly based, not confined to an aberrant application to one individual or a small group. The taxpayer may bring the suit without having to identify any… Read More
Vehicle Code 27001 prohibits honking a car horn except when reasonably necessary to warn of a safety hazard. Plaintiff was ticketed for honking her horn in a show of support for demonstrators protesting outside a government official's office. Over a strong dissent, this decision holds that section 27001 is a content-neutral restriction on speech (to the extent a car horn… Read More
First Student Cases (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1026 is to be given retroactive effect so that pre-2018 violations of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act are actionable despite the conflict among Court of Appeal opinions before First Students over whether the Act was constitutional. Read More
