Case Summaries

Family Law

[07/01] In re Cheyanne F.
Order terminating the parental rights of a mother pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is affirmed over claims that the juvenile court erroneously omitted information required for notification forms under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

[06/30] Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (Yolo County Dep't of Employment and Social Serv.)
For purpose of Welfare and Institution Code section 361.5(b)(4), the phrase "the parent or guardian of the child" refers merely to the parent's or the guardian's current status in the current dependency proceeding, and the phrase "the death of another child" in the section means the death of any other child. In this case, the juvenile court properly applied the statute in denying reunification service to a 28 year old father who murdered a 13-year old girl when he was 15.

[06/26] In re S.B.
An order terminating the parental rights to a child under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 is reversed and remanded where: 1) the terminated parent had a continuing beneficial relationship with the child within the meaning of the statutory exception to termination of parental rights; and 2) the juvenile court did not comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[07/08] Aliron Int'l, Inc. v. Cherokee Nation Indus., Inc.
In a breach of contract action involving a government contract, a subcontract, and a "Support Agreement", grant of defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) both the subcontract and Support Agreement referred to the same subject matter; 2) the Support Agreement showed on its face that it was executed to carry out the intent of the subcontract; 3) the contract was not ambiguous and the court would not consider extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent to exclude an arbitration clause; and 4) plaintiff failed to raise the issue of a missing signature and the circuit court would not consider it on appeal.

[07/08] Local 377 v. 1864 Tenants Assoc.
In an employer's challenge to an arbitration award against defendant, summary judgment for plaintiff-union confirming the award is affirmed where a collective bargaining agreement covering a bargaining unit composed of a single employee is a valid contract enforceable under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

[07/07] Ball v. Fleetboston Financial Corp.
In an action seeking declaratory relief regarding an allegedly unconscionable arbitration provision in a credit card agreement, denial of a motion for leave to amend is affirmed where: 1) the act of extending credit alone is not covered by the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the proposed second amended complaint did not allege a claim under the CLRA in connection with an actual purchase of goods or services using the credit card; and 2) plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief was wholly derivative of her statutory claim and therefore a demurrer as to the claim was also properly sustained.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[07/02] Allen v. Brown Clinic, P.L.L.P
In a medical malpractice suit, jury verdict for defendant-doctor is affirmed over claims that the district court erred when it denied his motion to exclude for cause: 1) all jurors who had ever received medical treatment at a particular clinic or with a particular doctor; 2) all jurors who had family members who had been treated at the clinic or by the doctor; and 3) two jurors who had relatives with connections to the defendants. A claim that the district court erred in denying a motion to exclude defendants' medical expert is also rejected.

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

[06/26] Florida Bar v. Glueck
Upon review of a referee's report recommending that respondent be found guilty of professional misconduct and be suspended from the practice of law for three years, the court affirms the recommendation of guilt and changes the punishment to disbarment over claims of error regarding: 1) a finding that respondent formed a partnership with a non-lawyer; 2) whether the partnership's activities did not conduct constitute the practice of law; 3) findings of fact that respondent made misrepresentations to the Bar during its investigation; 4) findings of fact to support the recommendation of misconduct with regard to clients; and 5) the referee's failure to find mitigating factors.

More...

Health Law

[07/08] Lin v. Mukasey
Petition for review of an order of removal is granted and the case remanded where petitioner met her burden of showing changed country conditions that entitle her to reopen her removal proceedings by demonstrating that she could be subject to forced sterilization if she is returned to China.

[07/08] Bauer v. Astrue
In a suit seeking benefits from the Social Security Administration, denial of plaintiff's claim for disability benefits based on her inability to keep a job because of her bipolar disorder is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) the ALJ failed to give due weight to treating physicians' reports on plaintiff's condition; and 2) medical experts may report or testify that the patient is unable to perform a certain job, as long as they understand the particular requirements required for performing the job on a full time basis.

[07/08] Mobley v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In a suit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging failure to accommodate plaintiff's disability, discriminatory termination, and unlawful retaliation, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant reasonably accommodated plaintiff's disability; 2) plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie case that she was terminated due to discrimination and not for failure to meet her job's performance requirements; and 3) the retaliation claim failed as she did not establish a causal connection between her protected activity and the adverse action.

More...