Latest 2 Cases: Doe v. Marten (Arbitration & Mediation), In re Scott (Constitutional Law)

The Response to President Trump’s Shameless Religious Photo Op Gives Me Hope for the Future

MARCI A. HAMILTON

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton praises the response of liberal clergy in response to President Trump’s seemingly opportunistic photo op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. Hamilton calls upon these religious leaders to continue speaking out loudly in the name of inclusion, love, and truth.

Read More

Doe v. Marten

Docket: A153427(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 4, 2020

Judge: Fujisaki

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

In November 2007, Marten performed surgery on Doe’s face and neck. In June 2008, Doe sent Marten a letter stating she was considering suing him and demanded that he preserve her documents, files, and photos. In November, Doe’s attorney served Marten with a written demand for arbitration pursuant to a Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement. In January 2009 Marten’s counsel responded, identifying an arbitrator, without questioning the origin of the agreement or disputing that Marten had signed it. The applicable one-year statute of limitations ran in March 2009. (Code Civ. Proc.340.5) In May 2009, Merten subpoenaed and obtained the records of Dr. Daniel, whom Doe earlier consulted. Located within Daniel’s records was a signed arbitration agreement. Nearly three years later, Marten’s counsel first confronted Doe with the arbitration agreement and refused to continue with the arbitration. Doe sued for medical malpractice and medical battery. The court overruled dismissal motions, finding triable issues as to whether equitable tolling or equitable estoppel disallowed the statute of limitations defense. The court imposed sanctions after hearing evidence that Marten destroyed electronically stored information. After the close of evidence, the trial court dismissed the medical battery claim. On the malpractice claim, the jury awarded over $6.3 million in damages. The court then found the malpractice claim time-barred. The court of appeal reversed in part. The medical malpractice claim was not time-barred because Merten’s conduct actually and reasonably induced Doe to refrain from filing a timely action.

In re Scott

Docket: D076909(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 4, 2020

Judge: Judith L. Haller

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1984, petitioner Lionel Scott pleaded guilty to third degree assault in Minnesota and admitted during his plea colloquy that he personally and intentionally pressed a warm or hot iron against his victim's face, inflicting a discernible burn mark that required medical treatment and was still somewhat visible four months later. In 1999, Scott was convicted in California of several sex offenses. The sentencing court imposed a Three Strikes law sentence of 75 years to life based, in part, on the court's finding that Scott's earlier Minnesota conviction constituted a "serious felony" (and therefore a "strike") because Scott "personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon" (the iron) in the commission of the offense. In making this finding, the trial court relied solely on the elements of the Minnesota offense and the plea colloquy establishing the factual basis for Scott's guilty plea. In 2019, Scott petitioned for habeas relief, arguing he was entitled to relief under California v. Gallardo, 4 Cal.5th 120 (2017), which held that a sentencing "court considering whether to impose an increased sentence based on a prior qualifying conviction may not"—consistent with a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial—"make disputed findings about 'what a trial showed, or a plea proceeding revealed, about the defendant's underlying conduct.' " The California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause directing the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to show why Scott was not entitled to relief pursuant to Gallardo, and why Gallardo should not have applied retroactively on habeas corpus to final judgments of conviction." Persuaded by In re Milton, 42 Cal.App.5th 977 (2019), the Court of Appeal concluded Gallardo did not apply retroactively. Nonetheless, the Court would have concluded Scott was not entitled to relief under Gallardo because the sentencing court based its findings regarding Scott's Minnesota conviction on undisputed facts "admitted by [Scott] in entering [his] guilty plea," a practice expressly permitted by Gallardo. Accordingly, Scott's petition was denied.