Decisions in Labor, Wage, Criminal and Government Contract Matters
Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, C060413, concerned a grocery store's request for injunctive relief against the picketing by a union in front of the store. In reversing the trial court's denial of the relief, the court held that, because the area in front of the store is not a public forum, the union's free speech rights, whether under the federal First Amendment or the state liberty of speech clause, are not infringed. The court also held that the Moscone Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments as applied to the circumstances of this case because it favors speech related to a labor dispute over speech related to other issues, and that the Labor Code section 1138.1 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and is thus invalidated. Lastly, the court held that the store is entitled to a preliminary injunction because it has made an unrebutted showing of a continuing trespass on the part of the union.
People v. Knightbent, C061208, concerned a challenge to the trial court's order imposing a $34 fine on defendant, pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.5, in a prosecution of defendant for second degree robbery and second degree burglary. In affirming with modification, the court held that the court erred because it should have imposed a total fine of $66 and defendant's claim of ex post facto clause violation is rejected.
People v. Glazier, B214200, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for first degree attempted burglary. In affirming the conviction, the court held that, because defendant's conduct, use of a flaming pole to commit arson inside his neighbor's house, fell within the parameters of the burglary-by-instrument doctrine, there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.
Morgan v. United Retail Inc., B216130, concerned a challenge to the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff's class action lawsuit against her former employer for violation of Labor Code section 226. The court affirmed the judgment as, defendant's wage statements complied with section 226's requirements regarding the total hours worked by showing the actual number of regular hours worked and the actual number of overtime hours worked during the applicable pay period.
HUB City Solid Waste Serv., Inc. v. City of Compton, B196639, concerned a challenge to the trial court's grant of the city's motion that it did not breach the franchise agreement when terminating it and judgment for the city in its cross-complaint seeking to void the contract and disgorge funds from the plaintiff in the plaintiff-waste management service provider's breach of contract suit against the city.
In affirming, the court held that there was no error in the trial court's application of the alter ego doctrine to hold the individual accountable for the company's actions as he acted within his official capacity in advising the city on its waste collection operations. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence showing that the campaign contributions and jobs for the council members' relatives were provided in return for the council members' approval of the franchise agreements with the company, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the introduction of evidence about the individual's prior involvement with payments to public officials in connection with government contracts.
- Full text of Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8
- Full text of People v. Knightbent
- Full text of People v. Glazier
- Full text of Morgan v. United Retail Inc
- Full text of HUB City Solid Waste Serv., Inc. v. City of Compton
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.