Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Due Process

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

By removing plaintiff from its no-fly list, the FBI did not moot plaintiff's claim that the US had violated his due process rights by adding him to that list without notice or any means of redress.  The removal didn't prevent the FBI from adding plaintiff to the list once again later and equally without notice or redress, and the FBI… Read More

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

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

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

This decision holds that there is a constitutional limit on aggregate statutory damage awards even if the statutory damage per violation passes constitutional muster.  An aggregate damage award may exceed due process limits in extreme situations—that is, when they are “wholly disproportioned” and “obviously unreasonable” in relation to the goals of the statute and the conduct the statute prohibits.  Constitutional… Read More

The female complainant in a university's disciplinary proceeding against a male student for alleged sexual assault on the complainant was not an indispensable party to the male student's mandate proceeding against the university for violating his due process rights in its proceedings which resulted in disciplining him.  While the complainant had an interest in the mandate proceeding, complete relief could… Read More

One union representing some of Antioch's employees brought an administrative grievance making the same claim as the retired employee plaintiff brought in this later suit--that the City was stinting them on contributions for their benefit to CalPers,  This decision holds that the due process limits on collateral estoppel keep it from operating to bar the current suit based on the… Read More

Although procedural fairness does not prohibit the combination of the advocacy and adjudicatory functions within a single administrative agency, tasking the same individual with both roles violates the minimum constitutional standards of due process. The irreconcilable conflict between advocating for the agency on one hand, and being an impartial decisionmaker on the other, presents a particular combination of circumstances creating… Read More

This decision reverses a preliminary injunction against the county's implementation of COVID-19 health protocols that shut down restaurants, and particularly, those like plaintiff's restaurant that provided nude or semi-nude adult entertainment with their restaurant services.  The preliminary injunction violated due process in banning all restrictions on restaurants generally, when the complaint and preliminary injunction papers were limited to First Amendment… Read More

There was no due process violation in the city's hiring outside counsel on an hourly fee basis to prosecute nuisance abatement suits.  Also, a fee award to the City as the prevailing party in the litigation was not an undue burden on the defendant's First Amendment right to petittion government by defending the nuisance abatement suit.  Health & Safety Code… Read More

In 2018, the California electorate adopted Prop. 11 which enact Lab. Code 880 et seq., providing that ambulance employees must remain reachable by a communications device during their work shifts, including rest breaks. Lab. Code 889 expressly made the new law applicable to any and all actions pending on, or commenced after October 25, 2017. This decision holds that the… Read More

Student accused of sexual assault was denied basic due process by university disciplinary board by withholding evidence of antidepressant drugs being taken by the victim until the last minute and barring accused student’s attorney from participating in the proceedings while allowing university’s own counsel to act in a prosecutorial role. Read More

Washington's unlawful detainer statute violates due process insofar as it permits summary issuance of a writ of restitution without hearing if the landlord claims non-payment of rent and the tenant fails to file a timely, sworn written statement in dispute. Read More

College’s disciplinary procedures did not pass due process muster because student accused of assault did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the accuser either directly or indirectly, and fact-finder did not have the ability to watch accuser testify so as to assess her credibility. Read More

City of San Diego’s ordinance setting a 30-day limitations period on challenges to tax assessments does not deny plaintiffs due process and is not subject to equitable tolling based on a prior suit by a different taxpayer. Read More