Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
People v. Int'l Fid. Ins., Co., No. G042328, concerned a challenge to the trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a forfeiture and exonerate bail in a prosecution of defendant for attempted murder and other crimes. In affirming, the court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion as, although defendant was subject to a greater potential maximum penalty under the first amended information than he had been under the original complaint, the charges in the first amended information were based on the same acts alleged in the complaint. The court also concluded that the certificate of mailing of the notice of forfeiture which was signed by a deputy clerk on behalf of the clerk of the court was properly executed.
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC, No. B213866, concerned a challenge to the trial court's confirmation of an arbitrator's award against defendants in the amount of $6.34 million in a trust's suit for breach of contract and other claims against two affiliated companies and individuals. In affirming, the court held that, per the JAMS rules, the arbitrator, not a court, determines what issues are arbitrable, and here, the arbitrator determined that the issue of joint and several liability was arbitrable. The court also held that the arbitrator's finding of joint and several liability was rationally related to the parties' contract, and as to the timeliness of the final award under JAMS rules, the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the rules cannot be judicially reviewed on the merits. Lastly, the court held that the suit against the arbitrator was barred by arbitral immunity and would not have caused a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator's impartiality.
Samantha C. v. State Dep't of Developmental Serv., No. B211710, concerned a plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate and a request for declaratory relief challenging the determinations made by Harbor Regional Center and the state Department of Developmental Services that she did not have a developmental disability and was therefore not entitled to services under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. In affirming in part, the court held that the trial court's judgment upholding the validity of the regulations was proper as they are consistent with section 4512(a). However, the court reversed in part the judgment of the trial court's determination that plaintiff does not have a developmental disability under the Lanterman Act, as she has a disabling condition related to her birth injuries which requires treatment within the meaning of the part of section 4512(a) known as the fifth category.
People v. Bloom, No. E048326, concerned a conviction of defendant for resisting arrest and other related charges, arising from making more than 40 harassing calls to 911 in a single evening. In affirming the conviction over a challenge to a denial of a motion to suppress, the court held that the dispatcher lawfully arrested defendant for making the calls and she was not required to physically restrain him or to be present at the time of the arrest.