Latest 2 Cases: Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (Arbitration & Mediation), People v. Estrada (Criminal Law)

Joe, Joey, Joe-Baby, Sexist: Where’s Your Imposter Syndrome?

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman responds to a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing soon-to-be First Lady Jill Biden for using the academic title she earned. Professor Grossman dissects the op-ed, penned by a retired lecturer at Northwestern University, and explains the deep and pervasive sexism behind it.

Read More

Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp.

Docket: B299743(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 16, 2020

Judge: Dhanidina

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation

The Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of AXQG. The court denied MMG's requests for judicial notice, found MMG's arguments to be meritless, and concluded that the appeal was frivolous. The court concluded that MMG cannot credibly argue that the arbitrator was required to disclose his affiliation with GLAAD because MMG's principal chose to testify about his Catholic faith when that information was irrelevant to the present dispute over his managerial misconduct. The court also concluded that the arbitrator did not fail to hear evidence material to the final award. In this case, there is no basis in the record for MMG's contention that the arbitrator refused to hear testimony from one of its witnesses; MMG's claim that the arbitrator cut off its counsel's cross-examination of a prospective employee fails for lack of support and, in any event, the testimony was immaterial; and the arbitrator did not fail to hear evidence on the authenticity of an exhibit consisting of a chain of emails. Finally, the court concluded that MMG's appeal is objectively and subjectively frivolous, imposing sanctions on MMG and its counsel.

People v. Estrada

Docket: A160032(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 16, 2020

Judge: Burns

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 1993, Estrada pled no contest to second-degree murder and admitted a deadly weapon use enhancement allegation for his use of a knife. He was sentenced to an indeterminate 15-years-to-life term for the murder plus a consecutive one-year term for the weapon use enhancement. A 2015 California law requires courts to consider, as mitigating factors weighing in favor of a low-term determinate sentence, any trauma, substance abuse, and mental health problems caused by a defendant’s service in the U.S. military (Penal Code 1170.91(a)). A 2018 amendment allows those sentenced for a felony conviction before January 2015 to petition for a resentencing hearing at which the court could consider mitigating factors related to military service. In 2019, Estrada sought resentencing under section 1170.91(b). He attached evidence of his military service and substance abuse, which allegedly began during his military service. The court of appeal affirmed that Estrada is not eligible for resentencing. Section 1170.91(b)(1) limits resentencing eligibility to those serving determinate sentences under section 1170(b). Sentences of life imprisonment and sentences of a number of years to life, such as Estrada’s term (section 190(a)), are not subject to the determinate sentencing law. Had the Legislature intended for section 1170.91 to apply to indeterminate terms under section 1168(b), it would not have limited its application to terms imposed under section 1170(b).