A Win for Equal Pay: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds A Law Designed to Address Wage Gap

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upholding a local law designed to address the wage gap. Grossman describes the landscape of equal pay law and the efforts some states and localities have made to address the inequity.

Read More

State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Baldwin & Sons, Inc.

Docket: D075617(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 10, 2020

Judge: Guerrero

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

Appellants Baldwin & Sons, Inc.; Baldwin & Sons, LLC; Sunranch Capital Partners, LLC; USA Portola Properties, LLC; Sunrise Pacific Construction; USA Portola East, LLC; USA Portola West, LLC; and SRC-PH Investments, LLC, all appealed an order compelling compliance with administrative subpoenas issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. Appellants were involved (or believed to be involved) in the construction of a large-scale development in the Portola Hills Community in Lake Forest, California. The State Board initiated an investigation into alleged violations of the federal Clean Water Act and California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act occurring during construction activities. In connection with its investigation, the State Board issued subpoenas seeking Appellants' financial records. When Appellants refused to produce the requested financial records, the State Board sought a court order compelling compliance with the subpoenas. With the exception of tax returns, the trial court concluded that the information sought was relevant to the State Board's investigation and subject to disclosure pursuant to the investigative subpoenas. Appellants argued on appeal: (1) their financial records were not reasonably relevant to the State Board's investigation; (2) compelling production of their financial records violated their right to privacy; and (3) the protective order did not adequately protect against disclosure of their private financial information to third parties. The Court of Appeal rejected these claims and affirmed the challenged order compelling production of the Appellants' financial records subject to a protective order.

California v. Yanez

Docket: E070556M(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 10, 2020

Judge: Fields

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Salvador Yanez IV was convicted by jury of second degree murder in the 2015 shooting death of Gilbert Lopez. The shooting followed a verbal argument between the two. In addition to murder, defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury also found true special allegations that defendant discharged a firearm and caused great bodily injury or death in the commission of the murder. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found defendant had suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony pursuant to Penal Code section 667(a) and a prior strike conviction pursuant to section 667(b)-(i). Defendant was sentenced to a total of 60 years to life in state prison, representing 30 years to life for the murder conviction, an additional 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, and an additional consecutive five years for the prior serious felony conviction. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert gang testimony which should have been excluded as unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352; (2) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct warranting reversal by referencing jury deliberations during argument on defendant’s motion to strike his firearm enhancement conviction; (3) defendant was not given constitutionally adequate advisement when waiving his right to a jury trial on his prior conviction and prior strike allegations; (4) the matter should be remanded to allow the trial court to exercise discretion to impose a lesser, uncharged firearm enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53(h); and (5) the matter should have been remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike a five-year enhancement pursuant to recent amendments made to sections 667 and 1385. The Court of Appeal concurred with the latter, and remanded the matter for resentencing pursuant to amended sections 667 and 1385. In all other respects, it affirmed judgment.

People v. Petri

Docket: H045990(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 10, 2020

Judge: Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The defendant pleaded no contest to grand theft and admitted that he had served one prior prison term. In another case, he pleaded no contest to embezzlement and also admitted to one prior prison term. At a combined sentencing hearing, the court sentenced the defendant to four years in jail with 577 days of custody credits. In each case, the court ordered the defendant to pay a restitution fine of $300, a court operations assessment of $40 and a court facilities assessment of $30. The court struck the prior prison term enhancement in one case. The court of appeal affirmed but modified, rejecting an argument that the trial court violated the defendant’s due process rights under the California and federal Constitutions because it failed to find that he had the present ability to pay the amounts imposed. The court found an argument that the court erred in denying him additional presentence custody credits for time spent in custody in Ohio moot. In the second case, the prior prison term enhancement must be stricken because the enhancement no longer applies; Senate Bill No. 136 amended Penal Code 667.5(b), so the enhancement applies only if the prior prison term was “for a sexually violent offense.”

Fowler v. City of Lafayette

Docket: A156525(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 10, 2020

Judge: Tucher

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

The application called for a “tennis cabaña” with a guest room and bathroom, next to a tennis court on a 2.38-acre residential property. Neighbors objected that the cabaña was inconsistent with the neighborhood; was too close to an adjacent home: was an illegal second unit; violated a landscape condition imposed when the tennis court was approved; was too large, too close to neighboring residences; was inconsistent with the general plan and municipal code; that the hearing notices violated the Brown Act; and that the applicants had an unfair advantage because their architect was a Planning Commission member. The applicants cut the size to 1,100 square feet and increased the distance from the cabaña to a neighboring project, and improved landscaping. The Commission approved the project subject to conditions, including a landscape agreement and the prohibition on use as a secondary dwelling unit. The City Council denied an appeal. While approval was pending, the applicants’ attorney threatened to sue if the city denied the project; the Council discussed the threat of litigation during closed sessions. That a threat of litigation had been made was not noted in the agenda for any of the public meetings. Plaintiffs did not learn about the litigation threat or the discussions until after the project had been approved. The court of appeal affirmed. While the city improperly considered the application in closed sessions in violation of Gov. Code 54950 (Brown Act), there was no prejudice.