Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In California Sch. Employees Ass'n v. Torrance Unified Sch. Dist., No. B212470, the Second District addressed plaintiffs' claim that the school district failed to pay their regular wages in violation of Education Code section 45203. In affirming the Superior Court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate, the court held that, under the plain meaning of the statute, classified employees who did not work on staff development student free days were not entitled to be paid for regular wages for such days.
In A.H. v. Sup. Ct. G043003, the Fourth District dealt with a father's request for a writ of mandate seeking relief from a juvenile court's order terminating his family reunification services and setting a permanency hearing for his four children. In rejecting the father's claim that the juvenile court should have applied section 361.5(a)(2) which takes into account a parent's incarceration rather than another provision, the court held that the juvenile court correctly weighed and considered all relevant provisions in making its decision.
In Freedman v. Brutzkus, No. B213489, the Second District addressed the issue of whether a signature of an attorney under the legend "approved as to form and content" on a contract amounts to an actionable representation to an opposing party's attorney that can provide a basis for tort liability. In answering in the negative, the court explained that the only reasonable meaning to be given to such a recital is that the attorney is asserting that he is the attorney for the particular party.
In People v. Concha, No. B195197, the Second District addressed the issue of whether a conviction for first degree murder for the killing of an accomplice by the intended victim in the course of attempted murder can stand in light of jury instructions. Here, the trial court failed to instruct the jury that for a defendant to be found guilty of first degree murder, he personally had to have acted willfully, deliberately and with premeditation when he committed the attempted murder. In upholding the conviction, the court concluded that the err was harmless as a rational jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant personally premeditated and deliberated the attempted murder.
In Cent. Concrete Supply Co. Inc. v. Bursak, No. A123930, the First District faced a trial court's grant of plaintiff's leave to amend in an action against an attorney for conspiracy to defraud plaintiff, despite the attorney's successful challenge that the complaint failed to allege compliance with the prefiling requirements under Civ Code section 1714.10(a). In affirming the decision, the court held that, in appropriate circumstances, a trial court may permit an amendment of the complaint after sustaining a demurrer based on section 1714.10, and here, the trial court stated that plaintiff may be able to allege that defendant was not the individual's attorney at the time of the alleged conspiracy.
Finally, in People v. D'Arcy, No. S060500, the California Supreme Court faced a conviction for first-degree murder and a sentence of death of a defendant after retrial of the penalty phase following a deadlocked jury at the first penalty phase. Defendant raised multiple issues on appeal. The court affirmed the conviction and the sentence, and rejected all of defendant's claims, including that there was insufficient evidence to support his first degree torture-murder conviction for setting the victim on fire.