Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Plus, Environmental, Criminal, and Employment Class Action Matters
Torrey Hills Cmty. Coalition v. City of San Diego, No. D055579, concerned a challenge to the trial court's denial of a petition for a writ of mandate challenging a city's approval of a development project consisting of 484 condominium units and 4,000 square feet of retail space. In affirming, the court held that the trial court properly dismissed the entire petition for writ relief because it did not serve the summons on defendant within the 90-day period set forth in Gov. Code section 66499.37. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's claim that the trial court erred by dismissing the CEQA claims in the writ petition on the additional ground that it did not request a hearing in writing as required by Public Resources Code section 21167.4.
People v. Phillips, No. F058534, concerned a challenge to the trial court's imposition of a two-year sentence and various fees and fines, including a $30 assessment under Gov. Code section 70373 in a prosecution of defendant for methamphetamine possession. In affirming the judgment, the court held that the date of the conviction, and not the date of the crime, controls application of the statute. Furthermore, the fact that section 70373 is part of a budgetary enactment supports application of the assessment to convictions regardless of the date of the underlying offense.
Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, No. B215594, concerned a challenge to the trial court's judgment finding a $1.1 million settlement fair and reasonable in a class action lawsuit against Coca-Cola Bottling company seeking damages and penalties for allegedly unpaid overtime wages and violation of other work conditions. In affirming, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as the record contains sufficient information from which the trial court could gain an adequate understanding of the amount in controversy, and there was likewise considerable information from which to assess the strength of the class claims and the risks and expense of litigating them.
Gilb v. Chiang, No. C061947, concerned a challenge to the trial court's order issuing a declaratory judgment concluding that Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) acted within its authority, in DPA's action seeking a declaratory relief against State Controller Chiang and the Office of State Controller, arising from DPA's order temporarily deferring paying state employees' salaries when appropriations are unavailable due to the state Legislature's failure to enact a timely state budget. In affirming, the court held that the trial court did not erroneously grant relief in a moot case. The court also held that the DPA has the authority to direct the Controller to defer salary payments in excess of federally-mandated minimum wages when appropriations for the salaries are lacking due to a budget impasse. Lastly, the court held that the Controller may seek judicial resolution but may not simply disregard the DPA directives.
Air Mach. Com SRL v. Superior Court, No. D054878, concerned a challenge to the trial court's order denying defendants' motions to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction in an action for breach of contract and other causes of action. In vacating the trial court's order, the court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(e)(1) applies to defendants' service of a section 998 offer on plaintiff. Thus, because defendants filed their motion to quash under section 418.10(a) before they served their 998 offer on plaintiff, and because section 418.10(e)(1) is interpreted broadly to include any "act," defendants were not deemed to have generally appeared in the action.
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.
Sign into your Legal Forms and Services account to manage your estate planning documents.Sign In
Create an account allows to take advantage of these benefits: