If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

California Courts of Appeal
April 9, 2020

Table of Contents

Brooks v. AmeriHome Mortgage Co., LLC

Arbitration & Mediation

In re David C.

Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

Garcia v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Criminal Law

Are You a Lawyer? The Justia Lawyer Directory boasts over 1 million visits each month.

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

When Children Stay Home—A COVID-19 Consequence

KATHRYN ROBB

verdict post

Kathryn Robb, executive director of CHILD USAdvocacy, describes how the COVID-19 pandemic uniquely endangers children who are being sexually abused by people close to them. Robb describes ways in which teachers, coaches, and other adult figures in children’s lives must do to ensure the safety of children in this time when schools and other safe spaces are shut down.

Read More

California Courts of Appeal Opinions

Brooks v. AmeriHome Mortgage Co., LLC

Docket: B298132(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 8, 2020

Judge: Tangeman

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood he would prevail on the issue of whether his claim was arbitrable. In this case, plaintiff would likely prevail on the merits because he cannot be compelled to submit any portion of his representative Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 claim to arbitration. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that plaintiff demonstrated that the interim harm he would suffer if the injunction was denied outweighed the harm AmeriHome would suffer if the injunction was granted.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

In re David C.

Docket: A157151(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 8, 2020

Judge: Frank Y. Jackson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

Based on allegations that the minor exposed himself to (Penal Code 314.1) and solicited sex from his 14-year-old female classmate and touched another classmate in a sexual manner (Penal Code 242), the juvenile court placed the minor on probation with multiple conditions. The court of appeal struck an electronics search condition. Nothing in the record establishes that the electronics search condition is valid as “reasonably related to future criminality,” and a treatment provider’s finding of “therapeutic necessity” at some later date is not equivalent to a finding that the burden imposed is proportional to the legitimate interests served by the condition. The court modified conditions relating to fees, the possession of materials or items that have a primary purpose of causing sexual arousal, and the minor’s proximity to the campus or grounds of any school unless enrolled, accompanied, or authorized. The court upheld conditions relating to psychological evaluations and polygraph testing,

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Garcia v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Docket: B302119(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 8, 2020

Judge: Laurie D. Zelon

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Petitioner sought a petition for writ of mandate, contending that his motion to dismiss should have been granted because the failure to hold a timely preliminary hearing violated the statutory time requirements of Penal Code section 859b and his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that, where an in-custody defendant is arraigned on an amended complaint, section 859b requires that the preliminary hearing be held within 10 court days of that arraignment unless there is a personal time waiver by the defendant or good cause for a continuance. In this case, petitioner was not held within the 10-day period prescribed by section 859b and he did not personally waive his right to a preliminary hearing within that time period. Therefore, section 859b mandates dismissal of the amended complaint against him.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043