Latest 4 Cases: Balla v. Hall (Civil Procedure), People v. Gonzalez (Criminal Law), New Livable California v. Association of Bay Area Governments ...

To Our Elected Representatives in Congress: The Framers Wouldn’t Be Surprised a President Attempted a Coup, Just Disappointed You Didn’t Stop It Sooner

MARCI A. HAMILTON

Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the country’s leading church-state scholars, pens an open letter to members of Congress, describing Wednesday’s insurrection by pro-Trump extremists as predicable (even predicted) to the Framers and calling upon Congress to impeach and convict the President. Professor Hamilton argues that Donald Trump is the embodiment of what the Framers expected from rulers: self-centered corruption, greed, and no care for the common good.

Read More

Balla v. Hall

Docket: D074804(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 6, 2021

Judge: Dato

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Communications Law

Defendant Edward Siegel was an unsuccessful candidate for the Solana Beach City Council in 2016. During and after the City Council campaign, Siegel’s campaign manager, defendant Brian Hall, sent a letter to the editor, distributed e-mails to local government and media, and posted Facebook messages about City Council members Lesa Heebner and Mike Nichols, and their relationship with local developer Joseph Balla (with Heebner and Nichols collectively, plaintiffs). Primarily using a fictional persona he created, “Andrew Jones,” Hall asserted or implied that Heebner and Nichols lobbied for the North County Transit District (NCTD) to select Balla for a Solana Beach train station project in exchange for Balla giving them design work on the project and directing a charitable donation to a nature conservancy they supported. Siegel and Hall also ran a campaign advertisement implying that Heebner endorsed Siegel in the City Council race using a favorable quote from a 2007 Certificate of Appreciation signed by Heebner and given to Siegel by the City for his volunteer work. Plaintiffs sued for defamation based on the publications, and Heebner claimed false light invasion of privacy based on the advertisement. Hall filed special motions to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. Siegel agreed not to file anti-SLAPP motions in exchange for relief from default; when he tried to file notices of joinder to Hall’s motions, the trial court rejected them. The court permitted plaintiffs to conduct discovery on actual malice, and then denied the anti-SLAPP motions. Hall appealed, contending the trial court erred: (1) by denying his motions; (2) by denying Siegel’s joinder; and (3) in permitting discovery. In essence, his position was that his publications were political opinions about a conflict of interest and not actionable. To this the Court of Appeal disagreed: calculated or reckless falsehoods can still amount to defamation even in that context. The Court reached a different conclusion as to plaintiffs' false light claim, as Heebner did not show the advertisement was defamatory per se or introduce evidence of special damages. Finally, the Court of Appeal affirmed the joinder and discovery rulings.

People v. Gonzalez

Docket: B297509(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 6, 2021

Judge: Wiley

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed defendant's conviction for robbing three people, but struck the gang enhancements for lack of substantial support. In this case, defendant snatched necklaces from three people. The court concluded that the gang expert had no logical basis for his opinion that defendant was "assisting his gang in having a feared reputation." The court explained that this claim made no sense when nothing linked these crimes to a gang. Furthermore, the expert conceded that no evidence showed defendant shared robbery booty with the gang. Finally, the court concluded that there was no instructional error, and that defendant forfeited his various challenges to the fines and fees assessed against him by failing to object.

New Livable California v. Association of Bay Area Governments

Docket: A159235(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 6, 2021

Judge: Petrou

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law

Plaintiffs are not-for-profit corporations focused on land use, zoning, housing, transportation, and open government. ABAG is a joint power authority of San Francisco Bay Area counties and cities, focused on housing. ABAG’s governing Board, consisting of county supervisors, mayors, and city councilmembers, is subject to the Brown Act, Govt. Code 54950. Plaintiffs contend the Board violated the Act’s vote reporting requirement during a meeting concerning a regional housing and transportation development proposal (CASA). The Board: rejected a motion to postpone a vote (Substitute Motion) on the CASA motion by “a show of hands,” that was reported as a “voice vote”; approved a motion to call the question on the CASA Motion by “a show of hands,” that was not reported; adopted an amended CASA motion by a “roll call,” that was reported as a “vote,” listing the name and vote of each member present. The plaintiffs alleged that the vote procedures for the Substitute Motion and the Motion to Call the Question involved no announcement “publicly” reporting the vote or abstention of each member; that the improper vote reporting of the Substitute Motion rendered the later Amended CASA vote void because if the Substitute Motion had succeeded, no vote would have been held on the Amended CASA motion; and that the “secretive” voting undermined their ability to monitor how members voted. The court of appeal reversed the dismissal of the suit; the allegations concerning the Substitute Motion state claims under sections 54960 and 54960.1 for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Luebke v. Automobile Club of Southern California

Docket: B302782(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 6, 2021

Judge: Dennis M. Perluss

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

After plaintiff was struck by another vehicle while waiting in his disabled car on the shoulder of the freeway for roadside assistance, plaintiff filed suit against Auto Club and Brent-Air for negligence. The trial court assumed, without deciding, that plaintiff could amend his discovery responses to state that Auto Club's delay in responding to his call was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. The trial court nonetheless held, as a matter of law, no special relationship existed between the Auto Club and plaintiff, and thus the Auto Club had no duty under tort law to provide any assistance. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of Auto Club, holding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on an issue not presented in the moving papers. In this case, the trial court improperly decided the issue of duty where the contract had nothing to do with the question of causation identified by Auto Club's motion and its separate statement, nor did the reasonableness of plaintiff's reliance on Auto Club to timely provide roadside assistance. The court affirmed the judgment as to Brent-Air because plaintiff does not address Brent-Air on appeal.