Law and Non-Legal Entitlements: Kate Manne’s Entitled: How Male Privilege Hurts Women

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler comments on philosopher Kate Manne’s recent book, Entitled, in which Mann tackles “privileged men’s sense of entitlement” as a “pervasive social problem with often devastating consequences.” Wexler praises Manne’s work as “illuminating” and calls upon lawyers and law scholars to ask how such entitlements might best and safely be challenged and reallocated, and how new more egalitarian entitlements might be generated and enforced.

Read More

Mayron v. Google LLC

Docket: H044592(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: September 11, 2020

Judge: Grover

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Consumer Law

California’s automatic renewal law, Bus. & Prof. Code 17600, requires a consumer’s affirmative consent to any subscription agreement automatically renewed for a new term when the initial term ends and requires “clear and conspicuous” disclosure of the offer terms, and an “easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation.” Mayron sued Google on behalf of a putative class, alleging that Google’s subscription data storage plan violates the automatic renewal law: “Google Drive” allows users (those registered for a Google account) to remotely store electronic data that can be accessed from any computer, smartphone, or similar device. There is no charge for 15 gigabytes of storage capacity. For a $1.99 monthly fee, users can upgrade to 100 gigabytes of storage. Plaintiff alleged Google did not provide the required clear and conspicuous disclosures nor obtain his affirmative consent to commence a recurring monthly subscription agreement and did not adequately explain how to cancel, and alleged unfair competition, Bus. & Prof. Code 17200. The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. There is no private right of action for violation of the automatic renewal law and, because Mayron has not alleged an injury caused by Google’s conduct, he has no standing to sue under the unfair competition statute.

Sanchez v. Martinez

Docket: C083268(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: September 11, 2020

Judge: Cole Blease

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law

Five laborers filed suit against their former employer, Miguel Martinez, alleging violations of various labor laws. The Court of Appeal previously heard plaintiffs' claims; in its initial review, the Court considered plaintiffs’ appeal of a judgment that rejected all their claims against Martinez. Although the judgment was affirmed for the most part, the Court reversed to allow plaintiffs to proceed on two of their claims, one of which concerned Martinez’s failure to pay plaintiffs for rest periods, and another of which was derivative of their rest-period claim. As was explained, Martinez was obligated to pay his employees for the time they spent on authorized rest periods. However, the Court found nothing in the evidence to show he had ever paid his employees for this time. The case was thus remanded to allow the trial court to determine appropriate damages and penalties based on this failure. Following the remand, the parties raised various challenges to the trial court’s calculation of damages and penalties. Plaintiffs contended the trial court undervalued their damages and wrongly rejected several of their claims for penalties. Martinez, in turn, claimed that insufficient evidence supported the trial court’s calculation of damages and penalties. Because the Court of Appeal find none of the parties’ several claims warranted reversal, it affirmed the trial court’s decision.

California v. Lombardo

Docket: C090041(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: September 11, 2020

Judge: Vance W. Raye

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1996, a jury found defendant Vincent Lombardo guilty of second degree murder. In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under newly enacted Penal Code section 1170.95, which was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015). The superior court denied the petition because, in its view, Senate Bill 1437 impermissibly amended Proposition 7 (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978) text of Prop. 7) and Proposition 115 (Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990) text of Prop. 115). The Court of Appeal disagreed with the superior court and agreed with the unanimous conclusion of other appellate courts that have addressed the issue: Senate Bill 1437 was not an invalid amendment of either Propositions 7 or 115. Though the superior court did not clearly rule on the issue, the parties also asked the Court of Appeal to determine whether Senate Bill 1437 violated Marsy’s Law (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2008) text of Prop. 9). To this, the Court concluded it did not, thereby agreeing with the unanimous conclusion of other appellate courts on this issue too. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.