Robinson v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc., H033951, concerned a challenge to the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on
the ground that plaintiff's state law claims were preempted under the
Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA), in plaintiff's products liability and personal injury suit against defendants for suffering severe injuries after he was implanted with the Ancure Endocraft System during a clinical study.
In affirming, the court held that, applying the test set forth in
Riegel, the FDA has established requirements applicable to the Ancure
Device under the investigational device exemption (IDE), thereby
satisfying the first prong of the Riegel test. Further, the second
prong of the Riegel test has also been satisfied, as to the extent that
plaintiff's complaint alleged that the Ancure Device was unsafe and its
warnings were inadequate, he was seeking to impose state law
requirements that were "'different from, or in addition to'" the MDA.
People v. Puentes, H034546,
Conviction of defendant for statutory rape of someone more than three
years younger and placed on felony probation for three years, is
reversed as the People did not carry their burden to dispel the
presumption of vindictiveness where, here, the prosecutor believed that
justice had been served by the misdemeanor conviction only until
defendant prevailed on appeal, and the magistrate's finding that the
prosecutor was honest, serious, and acting in good faith belief that she
could prove the felony beyond a reasonable doubt does not overcome the
undisputed fact that the prosecutor changed her mind about the interests
of justice only after defendant prevailed on appeal.
People v. Hollinquest, A124613,
concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for first degree
murder with a special circumstance. In affirming , the court held that
the prosecutor did not deny defendant the right of confrontation by
refusing to grant immunity to a witness who testified at the preliminary
hearing but was subsequently charged with murder. Further, the
prosecutor's reference in closing argument to defendant's post-arrest
silence in discussions with a friend was misconduct, but was not
prejudicial to the defense.
Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. W. Farm Serv., Inc., H033718,
concerned a plaintiff's suit claiming that pesticides defendant
supplied to fields near plaintiff's farm migrated to plaintiff's land,
contaminated plaintiff's crop, and rendered the crop unmarketable. The
jury rendered a verdict against the defendant in awarding plaintiff $1
million for the 2007 loss but nothing for 2006.
In affirming, the court held that defendant's argument that the trial
court lacked jurisdiction, except as allowed by the pesticide laws, to
issue an injunction controlling the place where pesticides may be
applied, is dismissed as moot. The court also held that plaintiff's
causes of action for negligence, trespass, and nuisance are not
displaced by the pesticide laws, as the statutory scheme leaves ample
room for such claims. Further, the negligence and trespass causes of
action were not barred by an administrative determination that defendant
had complies with the pesticide laws. Lastly, the trial court did not
err by instructing the jury in the doctrine of negligence per se, and
Civil Code section 3482 does not bar the nuisance cause of action.
In re Grace C., A127208,
concerned a challenge to a juvenile court's orders dismissing
dependency proceedings as to defendant's children after relatives were
appointed as legal guardians for the minors. In affirming, the court
held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in terminating
its dependency jurisdiction as the juvenile court's conclusion that the
legal guardians supported continued visitation was supported by
substantial evidence. The court also held that the juvenile court's
visitation order was not an abuse of discretion and the court properly
considered the need for flexibility and allowed for adjustments if
necessary after the termination of jurisdiction. Lastly, because
neither the defendant nor the child's father provided anything more than
the barest suggestion that the minors were Indian children, defendant's
argument that the Social Services Agency was obligated to provide ICWA
notice is rejected.