Latest 5 Cases: Swain v. LaserAway Medical Group, Inc. (Arbitration & Mediation), Changsha Metro Group Co. v. Xufeng (Business Law), Y.A. v. S.A. ...

What Is a Seizure, and What Is a Holding? The Court Hears Argument in Torres v. Madrid

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on two particular aspects of a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument last month, Torres v. Madrid. First, Colb discusses the distinction, for Fourth Amendment purposes, between touching someone directly with one’s hands and touching someone indirectly using an inanimate object. Second, she explains the difference between holding and dicta in a court opinion. Using these two points as illustrations, Colb shows how flexible the Constitution can be, lending itself to very different interpretations.

Read More

Swain v. LaserAway Medical Group, Inc.

Docket: B294975(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 3, 2020

Judge: Segal

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of LaserAway's petition to compel arbitration of an action brought by plaintiff, alleging that she suffered skin injuries as a result of laser hair removal treatment she received from LaserAway. The court held that plaintiff met her burden of showing that the arbitration agreement between her and LaserAway was unconscionable. In this case, the arbitration was procedurally unconscionable because the agreement was adhesive, warranting further review of the agreement's substantive terms. The court also held that the agreement had a high degree of substantive unconscionability, rendering it unenforceable. Furthermore, LaserAway failed to show the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1295.

Changsha Metro Group Co. v. Xufeng

Docket: E073322A(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 3, 2020

Judge: Miller

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure

The trial court found defendants Peng Xufeng and Jia Siyu filed a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion against Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. (Changsha). Changsha sued defendants for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) constructive fraud; (3) aiding and abetting; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) a constructive trust. Defendants responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court ordered defendants to pay Changsha $61,915 for Changsha’s attorney’s fees in opposing the anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants contended the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Changsha because: (1) defendants were not given a 21-day safe harbor period; and (2)Changsha requested attorney’s fees in its opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, rather than in a separate motion. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court.

Y.A. v. S.A.

Docket: B302038(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 3, 2020

Judge: Wiley

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Health Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the reappointment of S.A.'s conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act and the trial court's order that she can be medicated against her will. The court held that substantial evidence showed that S.A. was gravely disabled where S.A. had schizophrenia and lacked insight about her mental illness, S.A. would not take medication without the support of a conservator, and S.A. cannot provide for herself without a conservatorship and without medication. The court also held that the involuntary medication order was proper because substantial evidence established S.A. was unable to make informed treatment decisions.

People v. Nunez

Docket: B299065(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 3, 2020

Judge: Elwood G.H. Lui

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the summary denial of a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. The panel held that, in order to make the initial prima facie showing under subdivision (c) of section 1170.95 that the petitioner falls within the provisions of the statute, the petition must include the factual basis for the legal conclusion that "[t]he petitioner could not be convicted of first or second degree murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189." The court resolved the remaining issues in accordance with Division One decisions, holding that the superior court may summarily deny a section 1170.95 petition at the initial prima facie review on the ground that a defendant convicted of murder with a felony-murder special circumstance finding is not, as a matter of law, eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court agreed with the holdings in the Division One decisions that a section 1170.95 petition is not a vehicle for challenging, under the state Supreme Court's decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, a murder conviction by attacking the jury's prior factual finding that the defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Yazdi v. Dental Board of California

Docket: B298130(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 3, 2020

Judge: Sinanian

Areas of Law: Professional Malpractice & Ethics

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of appellant's petition for writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The trial court affirmed the Dental Board's decision to revoke appellant's dental license but stay the revocation and place him on probation for five years. The court held that Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, does not overturn the standard to be applied by the trial court in reviewing an administrative proceeding pursuant to a petition for writ of administrative mandate under section 1094.5. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding concerning the failure to use study models, appellant's failure to obtain informed written consent prior to treatment of four young patients, issues with professional fees, issues with patient record requests, issues with the treatment of a certain patient, and the discipline imposed.