Latest 4 Cases: Alfaro v. Superior Court (Civil Procedure), People v. Johnson (Criminal Law), People v. Mackreth (Criminal Law)

Severability in Larger Constitutional Context: Part Five in our Series on the California v. Texas Challenge to the Affordable Care Act

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this fifth of a series of columns examining the California v. Texas case challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone discuss severability in a larger context and explain why, in their view the majority and minority positions are partly right and partly wrong. The authors conclude that if the Court invalidates and enjoins the individual mandate, it should reject the challengers’ substantive express inseverability claim that the entire ACA remainder should be enjoined.

Read More

Alfaro v. Superior Court

Docket: A159577(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 9, 2020

Judge: Simons

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

California jurors “shall be selected at random, from a source or sources inclusive of a representative cross-section of the population of the area served by the court,” Code Civil Procedure, 197(a). “The list of registered voters and the Department of Motor Vehicles’ list of licensed drivers and identification cardholders" in the area served by the court are appropriate source lists. Marin County Local Rules state that after those source lists are combined, duplicates eliminated, and disqualified individuals purged ... a master list will be produced by using the complete randomization technique. The defendant in a Marin County capital murder case sought discovery in connection with his claim that Marin County juries were not selected from a fair cross-section of the community. He sought the county’s master list of prospective jurors, citing “Pantos,” which held a court’s “master list of qualified jurors . . . is a judicial record subject to public inspection and copying.” The court denied the request, finding that Pantos was no longer good law in light of subsequent statutory developments. The court of appeal reversed, concluding Pantos is still good law, at least as to the names and zip codes appearing on master jury lists. Section 197(c)’s new prohibition on the disclosure of information furnished by the DMV does not prohibit disclosure of master or qualified jury lists as public records. Privacy rights do not preclude disclosure of the names and zip codes on those lists.

People v. Johnson

Docket: A158081(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 9, 2020

Judge: Petrou

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2006, Johnson was convicted of receiving stolen property. He was released on a three-year parole term in June 2007. In August 2007, he was convicted of grand theft and possession of controlled substances for sale. The court deemed Johnson’s sentences served but placed him on a new, overlapping three-year parole term. Johnson’s parole was scheduled to end on August 16, 2010. After his release, Johnson absconded from parole supervision 11 times, for a total of 3,215 days, and was in jail on parole violations nine times, for a total of 699 days. In May 2019, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) filed a petition to revoke Johnson’s parole. The court asked why CDCR was “keeping him on parole” when he had not “committed any felonious conduct” in many years. A parole officer responded that Johnson had not completed parole because of “time stops.” The court terminated his parole after obtaining an admission from Johnson that he violated parole by absconding “since 2013.” The court granted CDCR’s motion for reconsideration stating it “acted in excess of jurisdiction” and that the new parole discharge date was September 8, 2019. The court“modifie[d] the conditions of [Johnson’s] parole to include no supervision.” The court of appeal reversed, finding that the court miscalculated Johnson’s parole discharge date and had no authority to terminate Johnson’s “parole supervision.”

People v. Mackreth

Docket: H046266(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 9, 2020

Judge: Elia

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Ward called 911 and reported that she “run off the road.” Sunnyvale Officer Meyer responded outside a store and spoke to Ward and Megoloff, a bystander. Megoloff said: “The guy ran in the store and was stuffing all kinds of shit down his pants" and identified Makreth behind the counter. Meyer was concerned that Makreth might have a weapon and that a robbery was planned. Meyer was wearing a police uniform; his badge was “readily apparent.” Mackreth ran into the storeroom and slammed the door. Meyer called for backup with lights and sirens. Mackreth emerged with keys and “something else in his hands.” Meyer drew his taser and yelled, “Get on the ground.” Mackreth looked “puzzled” and responded “Yes, sir” but was not compliant. Meyer thought Mackreth was “delusional.” Eventually, he got on the ground. He subsequently “popped up.” Meyer fired his taser. Mackreth ran around, despite Meyer’s efforts to stop him. Two more officers arrived, wearing uniforms and badges. Several struggles ensued, during which the officers were injured. Megoloff “didn’t see any excessive type actions by the police.” Mackreth was under the influence of methamphetamine at an “abuse level.” Methamphetamine was found in his car. Mackreth was placed on probation after he was convicted of misdemeanor resisting arrest, vandalism, and being under the influence of methamphetamine. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting his argument that the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury that he could be convicted of resisting arrest if he knew or “should have known” that the person he resisted was a police officer.

Phelan Piñon Hills Community Services District v. California Water Service Co.

Docket: F082094(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 9, 2020

Judge: Rosendo Peña, Jr.

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases (AVGC) proceeding litigated whether the water supply from natural and imported sources, which replenishes an alluvial basin from which numerous parties pumped water, was inadequate to meet the competing annual demands of those water producers, thereby creating an "overdraft" condition. Phelan ultimately became involved in the litigation as one of the thousands of entities and people who asserted they were entitled to draw water from the aquifer. The trial court subsequently defined the boundaries for the AVAA to determine which parties would be necessary parties to any global adjudication of water rights, and then determined that the aquifer encompassed within the AVAA boundaries (the AVAA basin) had sufficient hydrologic interconnectivity and conductivity to be defined as a single aquifer for purposes of adjudicating the competing groundwater rights claims. Settlement discussions ultimately produced an agreement among the vast majority of parties in which they settled their respective groundwater rights claims and agreed to support the contours of a proposed plan (the Physical Solution) designed to bring the AVAA basin into hydrological balance. Phelan, which provides water to its customers who are located outside the AVAA boundaries, became subject to the AVGC litigation because a significant source of its water is pumping from a well located in the AVAA basin. The Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence supports the judgment as to Phelan and Phelan was not deprived of its due process rights to present its claims. In this case, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Physical Solution will bring the AVAA basin into balance; the trial court correctly rejected Phelan's fourth cause of action asserting it had acquired water rights as a "public use appropriator;" the phased decisional procedure did not deprive Phelan of due process; and the trial court correctly concluded that Phelan had no priority claim to return flows from native safe yield.