Obey the Law

LESLIE C. GRIFFIN

In light of a case currently on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket for this term, UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin explains the importance of requiring employers and others to obey generally applicable laws not targeting specific religious practices—the result of the Court’s holding in Employment Division v. Smith. Griffin argues that it is hard to imagine a peaceful United States if organizations had a constitutional or statutory right to discriminate against all types of people.

Read More

Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Hass

Docket: D074790(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 16, 2020

Judge: Richard D. Huffman

Areas of Law: Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Civil Procedure, Class Action

John H. Donboli, JL Sean Slattery, and Del Mar Law Group LLP (collectively the Del Mar Attorneys) filed a mislabeling lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of consumers who claimed they were misled by "Made in the U.S.A." labels on designer jeans manufactured by Citizens of Humanity (Citizens). Citizens's jeans were allegedly made with imported fabrics and other components. The focus of the purported class action was that the "Made in the U.S.A." labels violated former Business and Professions Code section 17533.7. However, a new law was passed after the complaint was filed that relaxed the previous restrictions and, ultimately, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. Citizens then filed this malicious prosecution action against the named plaintiff in the prior case (Coni Hass), a predecessor plaintiff (Louise Clark), and the Del Mar Attorneys. Each defendant filed a motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Finding that Citizens met its burden to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits, the trial court denied defendants' motions. Appellants Hass and the Del Mar Attorneys appealed, contending Citizens failed to make a prima facie showing that it would prevail on its claims. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding: (1) there were no undisputed fact on which it could determine, as a matter of law, whether the Del Mar Attorneys and Clark had probable cause to pursue the underlying actions; (2) there was evidence which would have supported a reasonable inference the Appellants were pursuing the litigation against Citizens with an improper purpose; and (3) the district court's dismissal of the underlying action, with prejudice, constituted a favorable termination in the context of a malicious prosecution suit.

M.G. v. Super. Ct.

Docket: G058611(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 16, 2020

Judge: Kathleen E. O'Leary

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law

Mother, M.G., and Father, A.G., both petitioned for an extraordinary writ in the dependency cases of their children, A.G. and C.G. They challenged the juvenile court’s order after a contested review hearing. The court terminated family reunification services for Mother and Father and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing for March 19, 2020. Mother and Father assert the court erred by setting the .26 hearing because there was an insufficient evidentiary showing the children would be at risk in their care. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the parents that Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to present sufficient evidence the children would be at risk if returned to their parents.

People v. Sanchez

Docket: F076838(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 16, 2020

Judge: Snauffer

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of attempted murder and assault with a firearm after his acquaintance fired a shotgun during a confrontation with other men. The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was sufficient to prove attempted murder, and that the natural and probable consequences theory did not violate his due process rights. However, the court held that the natural and probable consequences doctrine cannot prove attempted murder. The court wrote that Senate Bill 1437 now prohibits imputing malice to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. Therefore, because malice in the murder context is no longer imputable, the Legislature has eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a viable theory to prove attempted murder. The court additionally reasoned that limiting SB 1437's malice imputing prohibition to murder has the absurd consequence of incentivizing murder. In this case, defendant was prosecuted under both a valid direct aiding and abetting legal theory and an invalid legal theory because the natural and probable consequences doctrine is no longer a viable theory to prove attempted murder. Therefore, the resulting prejudice requires reversal of the attempted murder conviction.

In re N.D.

Docket: B300468(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 16, 2020

Judge: Tangeman

Areas of Law: Family Law, Native American Law

The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the juvenile court's disposition order removing father's children from his custody and continuing their placement in foster care. The court held that CWS was required to complete its Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry and notification process at least 10 days before the disposition hearing, because CWS sought continuance of foster care. Accordingly, the court remanded to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of allowing CWS to comply with ICWA.

K.G. v. S.B.

Docket: D075872(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 16, 2020

Judge: Judith McConnell

Areas of Law: Family Law, Personal Injury

Father knew his son, C.B., had been addicted to drugs for a number of years, and "had paid on numerous prior occasions" for C.B. to undergo "detox and/or drug rehabilitation and treatment programs to treat his addiction." C.B. was not employed and was "dependent" on Father for financial support. Father provided "regular, consistent, and frequent financial support" to C.B., which included paying for C.B.'s housing and living expenses as well as giving him money for spending and "necessities of life." The question posed by this appeal was whether Father could be held liable for the death of his son's girlfriend by overdose on methamphetamine allegedly purchased or supplied by the adult son. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a wrongful death complaint filed against Father. The trial court concluded no special relationship existed between Father and his adult son such that Father should be held liable for wrongful death of the girlfriend. To this, the Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed dismissal.