Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Stasz v. Eisenberg, B217470, concerned a challenge to the trial court's dismissal of the suit for failure to pay costs and attorney fees ordered when the court transferred the action to San Francisco pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 399(a), in plaintiff's suit involving a claim to entitlement of property located in San Francisco. In affirming, the court held that plaintiff was not entitled to notice of finality of the transfer order under section 399(a) because she did not challenge the order by way of writ of mandate. The court rejected plaintiff's claims that she did not receive timely service of the motion to dismiss, and that she was improperly denied an opportunity to seek reconsideration.
Sacks v. City of Oakland, A126781, concerned a plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate, challenging the allocation and use of tax revenue collected by the City of Oakland pursuant to Measure Y, an ordinance enacted by the voters to add neighborhood beat officers to the police department. In reversing the judgment of the trial court, the court held that the city did not make an impermissible use of Measure Y funds by indirectly hiring and training new officers to replace veteran officers who were assigned to the neighborhood beat positions added by the ordinance. The court also held that the city was required to appropriate funds, but not actually staff the police force, with the minimum number of officers specified by Measure Y.
People v. Christiana, E048681, concerned a challenge to the trial court's order authorizing involuntary administration of psychotropic medication, in proceedings to determine competency of defendant to stand trial for various offenses. In reversing, the court held that the required specific showing under the Sell factors was wholly lacking in this case.
In re Marriage of Mosley, G044305, In marital dissolution proceedings, the court denied husband's motion to dismiss the wife's notice of appeal as untimely as, although a judgment or an appealable order is presumptively filed on the filed-stamped date, the presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the order was not accessible to the public in either paper or electronic form, and was not sealed by court order or made confidential by law, and here, the wife has rebutted the presumption regarding the date of filing.
In re Allison J., A128626, concerned a challenge to a juvenile court's denial of father reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5(b)(12), which allows a court to bypass reunification services where a parent has committed a violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5(c). In affirming, the court held that section 361.5(b)(12) satisfies the requirements of substantive due process when considered in connection with section 361.5(c).
Advanced Network, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., D055632, concerned a challenge to the trial court's judgment awarding $2 million in compensatory and punitive damages in favor of the insured in a dispute over insurance coverage under a commercial general liability policy. In reversing and remanding, the court held that the trial court erred in finding that the underlying action for the replacement of cash stolen by the insured's employee from one of its clients was an action for damages for the "loss of use" of property within the meaning of the policy, because 'loss of use' of property is different from 'loss' of the property. Thus, as neither the allegations of the underlying complaint nor any extrinsic facts raised any coverage potential, the defendant had not duty of defense or indemnification.