Civil Procedure
Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 allows courts to enter judgment under the terms of a settlement agreement, but a court cannot enter a judgment that contains an unenforceable liquidated damages clause. Where a landlord and tenant agreed to a stipulated judgment under which the landlord was entitled to judgment of a sum certain if the tenants did not vacate the property before an agreed-upon deadline, entry of judgement against the tenant pursuant to the stipulation was an unenforceable penalty since the stipulation was a compromise of disputed claims, the parties made no effort to anticipate the amount of damages that may flow from a breach of the stipulation, and there was no meaningful relationship between the amount and the stipulation for the tenant to vacate the property.
Graylee v. Castro - filed July 13, 2020, publication ordered Aug. 4, 2020, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3595
Full text click here >
For purposes of Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, a plaintiff’s lawsuit is a catalyst if it induces the defendant to voluntarily provide the relief sought; a lawsuit induces such relief if it is a material factor in motivating the defendant, or if it contributes in a significant way to the result achieved.
Skinner v. Ken’s Foods - filed Aug. 21, 2020, Second District, Div. Six
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 4083
Full text click here >
Criminal Law and Procedure
Evidence Code §1240 is not an automatically applicable proxy for compliance with due process minima; where the prosecution offers an out-of-court statement as a substitute for live testimony, there will always be some value to the defendant’s right to confront the speaker, and whether that right is so essential as to overcome the state’s showing of good cause for offering hearsay can only be determined by situational weighing of the Arreola balancing factors. While excited utterances may be uniquely valuable as a form of hearsay, that does not mean they must be treated as effectively irrebuttable.
People v. Liggins - filed Aug. 6, 2020, First District, Div. Four
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3659
Full text click here >
Evidence Code §240 does not provide an exclusive definitional list of the categories of unavailability cognizable under the Evidence Code; the 2010 addition of subdivision (a)(6) to §240 did not abrogate prior case law. Code of Civil Procedure §1219 (b) is a reasonable limit on the trial court’s contempt power enacted to spare victims of sexual assault from further victimization.
People v. Lawson - filed Aug. 4, 2020, First District, Div. Three
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3627
Full text click here >
A failure to specifically object to an expert’s qualifications forfeits the objection. A trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion in allowing an expert to testify as to the sequence of events where there was evidence to support his conclusions, his conclusions were based on his training and experience in crime scene reconstruction, and his sequencing testimony did not add meaningfully to the picture already before the jury.
People v. Morales - filed Aug. 10, 2020
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3692
Full text click here >
Contacts
The temporary conservators of a resident of a senior living facility lacked the power to bind the resident to an agreement giving up substantial rights without her consent or a prior adjudication of her lack of capacity.
Holley v. Silverado Senior Living Management - filed Aug. 7, 2020, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3730
Full text click here >
A Section 8 beneficiary’s compensation for providing in-home care for a severely disabled adult daughter should be excluded from income in calculating the rental subsidy.
Reilly v. Marin Housing Authority - filed Aug. 31, 2020
Cite as 2020 S.O.S.
Full text click here >
Family Law
The absence of a relationship between a noncustodial parent and child is an appropriate factor to consider in determining whether placement with the parent would be detrimental to the child’s emotional well-being; the child’s wishes are not dispositive, but they are relevant; the court’s inquiry properly is more comprehensive than simply whether a child will be physically safe with a noncustodial parent or whether that parent has behaved badly.
In re A.C. - filed Aug. 7, 2020, publication ordered Aug. 28, 2020, Second District, Div. Eight
Cite as 2020 S.O.S.
Full text click here >
While health quarantines to prevent the spread of infectious disease constitute good cause for a continuance, a juvenile court erred in continuing a hearing six months beyond the time period allowed by statute as modified by emergency order.
In re M.P. - filed Aug. 3, 2020, Second District, Div. Five
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3609
Full text click here >
A juvenile court has the authority to order vaccinations for dependent children under its jurisdiction; Health and Safety Code §120372(d)(3)(C) does not deprive the court of that authority.
In re S.P. - filed Aug. 6, 2020, Second District, Div. Six
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3675
Full text click here >
A wife’s lack of involvement or interest in the couple’s finances before they separated sheds little if any light on what she would do to protect her financial interests after retaining divorce counsel, filing for divorce, and serving her husband with restraining orders that barred him from making unilateral decisions involving the community estate. The financial success of one undisclosed investment does not erase the harm to the community estate occasioned by a separate undisclosed transaction.
In re Marriage of DeSouza - filed Aug. 10, 2020, publication ordered Aug. 27, 2020, First District, Div. Three
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 4210
Full text click here >
Healthcare
The $500 cap in Health and Safety Code §1430(b) applies per action, not per regulatory violation.
Jarman v. HCR Manorcare, Inc. - filed Aug. 17, 2020
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3955
Full text click here >
Trusts and Estates
Probate Code §21622 does not preclude application of a general disinheritance clause.
Rallo v. O’Brian - filed Aug. 3, 2020, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3600
Full text click here >
California courts have case-linked personal jurisdiction over out-of-state trustees and beneficiaries who have purposefully availed themselves of forum benefits, where the controversy relates to the respondents’ contacts with the forum, and where the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.
Buskirk v. Buskirk - Filed August 14, 2020, Second District, Div. Eight
Cite as B295648
Full text click here >
|