Decisions in Criminal, Labor, & Property Law Matters
By
FindLaw Staff
on December 27, 2010
| Last updated on March 21, 2019
Sheppard v. N. Orange County Reg'l Occupational Program, G041956, concerned a challenge to the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant, in an instructor's suit against the North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (NOCROP) for failing to pay wages in violation of Wage Order No. 4-2001, failure to pay wages in breach of a written contract, and unfair competition.
The court reversed the trial court's order granting summary judgment on
the pleadings as to the violation of the minimum wage law claim, as the
minimum wage provision in Wage Order No. 4-2001 applies to plaintiff's
employment with NOCROP because the program was the creation of one or
more public school districts through Education Code section 52301, and
the Legislature has plenary authority over public school districts and
was constitutionally authorized to vest in the IWC, through section
1173, the power to impose the minimum wage law provision contained in
Wage Order No. 4-2001 as to employees of such public school districts.
The court also reversed the trial court's order sustaining defendant's
demurrer to plaintiff's breach of contract claim as the California
Supreme Court precedent establishes that a public employee has a
contractual right to earned but unpaid compensation. However, the court
affirmed the trial court's order sustaining the demurrer to the quantum
meruit claim, as the Government Claims Act bars the assertion of such a
claim against a public entity.
Schuman v. Ignatin, B215059,
concerned a challenge to the the trial court's entry of judgment in
favor of the defendant, in plaintiffs' suit against their neighbors
seeking to block proposed construction. In reversing the judgment, the
court held that, because challenges to recorded amendments to CC&Rs
must be brought within four years, defendant's challenge is
time-barred. The court also held that plaintiffs' failure to plead the
statute of limitations did not waive the affirmative defense of statute
of limitations.
People v. Woods, B223793,
concerned a prosecution of defendant for cocaine possession and
misdemeanor marijuana possession. The court modified the judgment as,
when a defendant is placed on probation pursuant to Penal Code section
1210.1(a), a court facility assessment pursuant to Gov. Code section
70373(a), restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4(b)(1),
and a court security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8(a)(1),
may not be stayed.
People v. Cabrera, G042390,
concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for various crimes
including, carjacking, possession of a firearm by a felon and street
terrorism. The court held that a reasonably jury could find that
Highland Street was a street gang, and that the evidence supports a
determination that defendant's actions, committed without another
Highland Street member present, promoted or furthered the gang's felony
conduct. The court also held that sufficient evidence supports the gang
enhancement, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
excluding defendant's statement. Lastly, because the jury was
instructed on car theft, even assuming the trial court should also have
instructed on the drug crimes, failure to do so was harmless.
Related Link:
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
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.