Decisions in Employment, Civil Rights, Criminal & Family Law Matters - California Case Law
California Case Law - The FindLaw California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Opinion Summaries Blog

Decisions in Employment, Civil Rights, Criminal & Family Law Matters

Bautista v. County of Los Angeles, B219035, concerned a challenge to a trial court's denial of plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate seeking to reverse the decision of the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission approving his discharge as a sworn peace officer for engaging in a personal relationship with a known prostitute and heroin addict in violation of the sheriff's department's prohibited-association policy, and grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on plaintiff's federal civil rights claim.

In affirming the denial of the petition, the court held that the trial court did not err in denying the petition for writ of mandate as plaintiff's discharge from the department was not unconstitutional and the penalty imposed was not excessive.  The court also held that the trial court's summary judgment on plaintiff's section 1983 claim against the department and sheriff was proper as plaintiff cannot demonstrate any constitutional violation.

In People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., E049430, the court reversed and remanded the trial court's denial of a surety's motion to set aside a forfeiture of a bail bond as, the court lacked jurisdiction to order the forfeiture because the bond was exonerated by operation of law pursuant to Penal Code section 1305(a).

In People v. Cornett, A123957, the court held that defendant was not properly charged with and convicted of violating section 288.7, in a conviction of defendant for molesting his two stepdaughters, because Jane Doe 1, who was 10 years 11 months at the time of the molestation, is not a child 10 years of age or younger within Penal Code section 288.7(b).

In re B.F., D057506, concerned a challenge to the juvenile court's order granting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 petition and thus authorizing the release of the mother's court-ordered psychological evaluation, brought by the de facto parents of the mother's minor children.  In reversing, the court held that the juvenile court abused its discretion by granting the petition for disclosure of the children's juvenile case files, including the mother's psychological evaluation and supporting documents, as the court elevated the de facto parents' interests to those of the parents, failed to consider the mother's interests and concluded without basis that the children's interests required disclosure of the psychological evaluation.

Entezampour v. N. Orange County Cmty. Coll. Dist., G043272, concerned a plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate seeking to compel the North Orange County Community College District (District) to reassign him to a faculty member position.  In reversing the trial court's order sustaining the District's demurrer to the petition, the court held that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer because the petition alleged facts which, if true, would support the issuance of a writ of mandate compelling the District to comply with section 87458 and Board Policy #2003 and reassign plaintiff to a first-degree probationary faculty member position.

Related Links: