Case Summaries

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

[11/30] Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Sup. Ct.
In a class action suit brought by employees against the Costco Wholesale Corporation alleging the corporation misclassified some of its managers as exempt employees and therefore failed to pay them overtime wages, trial court's directions ordering a referee to conduct an in camera review of an opinion letter sent by outside counsel to Costco and allowing the referee to redact the letter to conceal that portion he believed to be privileged, and requiring Costco to disclose the remainder to the opposing party, is reversed as the trial court's directions and order violated the attorney-client privilege, as well as the statutory prohibition against requiring disclosure of information claimed to be subject to the attorney-client privilege in order to rule on a claim of privilege.

[11/27] Capogrosso v. Advisory Comm. on Judicial Conduct
Dismissal of an attorney's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against four New Jersey Superior Court judges, the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC), and its director and counsel is affirmed where: 1) the criminal allegations against the judges are related to actions they took as judges and plaintiff has not set forth any facts that would show that any of the judges acted in the absence of jurisdiction; 2) plaintiff's criminal claims fail to state a cause of action under section 1983, as individual citizens do not have a constitutional right to the prosecution of alleged criminals; 3) plaintiff failed to state a section 1983 claim for one of the judge's alleged improper influence; 4) district court properly dismissed plaintiff's five claims for attorney's fees and costs based on the alleged constitutional violations because, to the extent that plaintiff's pro se complaint can be read to include claims against the director and counsel of ACJC in their individual capacities, they are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and thus not subject to suit for injunctive relief; and 5) plaintiff's claim that New Jersey Court Rule 2:15 violates the New Jersey Constitution is rejected.

[11/24] Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Elec. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit against a Taiwanese corporation and an Israeli corporation claiming that they misappropriated the design of a microchip used in manufacturing personal computers, trial court's entry of default judgment against defendants is reversed where: 1) undisputed facts plainly establish defendants' attorney's fault necessary to trigger a right to mandatory relief; 2) plaintiff's argument that relief was barred by Code of Civ. Proc. section 1008, which restricts motions for reconsideration and renewals of previously denied motions, is rejected; and 3) to the extent a literal application of section 1008 might conflict with the provisions of section 473(b), the latter must prevail.

[11/23] Legal Aid Servs. of Or. v. Legal Servs. Corp.
In a First Amendment challenge to restrictions on lobbying, soliciting clients, participating in class actions, and seeking attorneys' fees imposed on legal aid organizations that received federal grants through the Legal Services Corporation, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the regulations did not discriminate against any particular viewpoint or motivating ideology; and 2) plaintiffs' professed fear that their federal funding might be terminated was not sufficient to support an as-applied challenge.

[11/19] Barboza v. West Coast Digital GSM, Inc.
In a class action lawsuit brought by former employees alleging unlawful wage deductions, failure to pay overtime and other employment violations, class counsel's obligations to the class do not end with the entry of judgment and his obligations continue until all class issues are resolved, which may include enforcement of the judgment.

[11/12] Florida Bar v. D'Ambrosio
State Bar's petition for contempt of the plaintiff for violating a court suspension of one year and practicing law, is granted where: 1) the referee properly denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss; 2) the referee did not abuse his discretion by sua sponte taking judicial notice of the Illinois rule regarding the unlicensed practice of law; 3) the referee's findings of fact, that the plaintiff engaged in the practice of law while suspended and that he held himself out as a lawyer while suspended, are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record; and 4) the referee's recommendations of guilt and discipline is approved.

[11/12] Cassel v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit, his request for writ of relief from two orders excluding evidence in favor of his former attorneys is granted and the orders vacated as the communications are a client and his attorney, outside the presence of, and not otherwise communicated to, any opposing party or the mediator, and reveal nothing said or done in the mediation discussion.

More...

Family Law

[12/14] California Alliance of Child & Fam. Servs. v. Allenby
In an action challenging California's scheme of reimbursement to foster care homes, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where California was not in "substantial compliance" with the federal Child Welfare Act's (CWA) mandate that a participating state "cover the cost" of certain enumerated items for foster care group homes because it paid at a rate that was approximately 80 percent of actual 1986-1987 costs adjusted for inflation, and the CWA required California to pay in full.

[12/08] Jones v. Richards-Cantave
In an appeal from an order approving a settlement agreement in a class action challenging policies adopted by the New York City Administration for Children's Services relating to the removal of children from their homes in cases of abuse and neglect, the order is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court erred in finding that the objector had opted out and, consequently, in removing her as class representative, but the error was harmless; and 2) the agreement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. However, the order is vacated in part where the text of a release provision did not comport with the undisputed intent of the parties.

[12/02] In re Marriage of Richardson
The child support portion of a default judgment in a divorce proceeding initiated by respondent-father is reversed where the trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to award child support for the parties' minor child because the child's home state is Japan. None of the statutorily defined limited circumstances, barring California courts jurisdiction over child custody and support matters when California is not a child's home state, exist in this case.

[12/01] Buie v. Neighbors
In a marital dissolution action, family court's ruling that a Porsche automobile purchased by the wife during the marriage with her separate property funds and gifted to her then-husband was transmuted to his separate property by virtue of the gift is reversed and remanded where: 1) family court erred in concluding that the Porsche is the husband's separate property; and 2) plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for the contribution of her separate property funds to buy the Porsche.

[11/30] In re R.S.
Order of the juvenile court terminating parents' parental rights is reversed where: 1) the juvenile court erred in holding the section 366.26 hearing and in issuing orders that terminated parental rights and granting a request by the minor's foster parents to be designated as prospective adoptive parents, because in doing so the court impermissibly interfered with a final, voluntary relinquishment the parents had made to State Adoptions; and 2) it was unnecessary to address mother's contention that the court violated notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act because any defect in the notice provided to Indian tribes is rendered moot by the parents' voluntary relinquishment to State Adoptions.

[11/30] Maxwell v. Maxwell
In a husband's petition for wrongful removal under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act against his wife for taking their four children from Australia to the US after their failed marriage reconciliation attempt, district court's order denying his petition is affirmed as: 1) district court properly determined that the husband failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the quadruplets' habitual residence was Australia; 2) the district court's finding that there was no shared parental intent to abandon the US as the quadruplets' habitual residence is not clearly erroneous; and 3) there are several objective factors supporting the district court's conclusion that the quadruplets never became acclimatized to Australia during their two-month stay.

[11/25] In re Marriage of Tejeda
Trial court's order declaring plaintiff a putative spouse on the ground that the parties' marriage was invalid because the husband already had a wife when he married plaintiff is affirmed as, applying the unambiguous language of Family Code section 2251, the parties' union is a putative marriage and the property acquired during that union is quasi-marital property subject to division as community property.

More...

Workers' Comp

[11/13] Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision and award finding the employer liable for discrimination against an industrially injured employee because the employer did not accept a physician's release to allow the employee to return to work is annulled as the employee did not establish a prima facie showing of employer's liability for discrimination in violation of Labor Code section 132a, and as such, the burden did not shift to the employer to establish an affirmative defense.

[11/04] Liberty Mut. ins. Co. v. Hurlbut
In a constitutional challenge to two amendments to the New York Workers' Compensation Law, the district court's judgment abstaining from the case is affirmed where Burford abstention was appropriate because federal court intervention would be disruptive of a carefully established state system, and might also yield inconsistent and therefore conflicting results.

[10/30] Groover v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
In a wrongful death action based on a construction accident, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiff's remedy was limited to workers' compensation under Louisiana law.

[10/29] Green-Brown v. Sealand Servs. Inc.
Plaintiff's petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board of the US Department of Labor, affirming an ALJ's decision that awarded hearing loss compensation to plaintiff under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) based on an audiogram that did not comply with the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), is granted and reversed because section 908(c)(13)(E) of the LHWCA mandates that hearing loss compensation be based on hearing loss determinations made in accordance with the AMA Guides.

[10/13] Esquivel v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.
A ruling reversing a workers' compensation judge's findings and awards in favor of claimant is affirmed where the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board did not err in concluding that claimant's new injuries are not compensable under the Worker's Compensation Act because they clearly occurred outside the reasonable geographic area of her employer's compensability risk.

[10/01] Pedroza v. Benefits Rev. Bd.
In a petition for review of the Benefits Review Board's determination that petitioner was not entitled to disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act, the petition is denied where psychological injuries that result from legitimate personnel actions are not compensable under the Act.

[09/09] Williams v. Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Ins. Serv.
In a negligence action against an insurance agency for failing to include workers compensation in the insurance package arising from a multimillion dollar judgment against plaintiff for injuries suffered by employee in a catastrophic fire, trial court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the evidence amply supported the court's finding that defendant's employee failed to use the skill and care a reasonably careful insurance professional would have used in similar circumstances; 2) the action is not barred by the statute of limitations; and 3) the trial court did not err in refusing to assign fault to the plaintiff.

More...