Latest 4 Cases: Edelweiss Fund, LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (Civil Procedure), Capra v. Capra (Civil Procedure), California v. Scott ...

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Real Rigging of Georgia’s Election

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar explains why Georgia’s law allowing persons 75 years and older to get absentee ballots for all elections in an election cycle with a single request, while requiring younger voters to request absentee ballots separately for each election, is a clear violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Dean Amar acknowledges that timing may prevent this age discrimination from being redressed in 2020, but he calls upon legislatures and courts to understand the meaning of this amendment and prevent such invidious disparate treatment of voters in future years.

Read More

COVID Comes to Federal Death Row—It Is Time to Stop the Madness

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—explains the enhanced risk of COVID-19 infection in the federal death row in Terre Haute, not only among inmates but among those necessary to carry out executions. Professor Sarat calls upon the Trump administration and other officials to focus on saving, rather than taking, lives inside and outside prison.

Read More

Edelweiss Fund, LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Docket: A158728(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 22, 2020

Judge: Tucher

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government Contracts

In 2014, Edelweiss filed under seal its qui tam complaint, seeking to recover more than $700 million in false claims allegedly paid by the state and political subdivisions. The defendants were entities involved in the marketing of government-issued variable-rate bonds. The Attorney General reportedly received multiple extensions of the 60-day period for investigation and in October 2015, filed a notice declining to intervene. The next day, Edelweiss successfully moved to further extend the seal to January 2016. Edelweiss’s second motion to extend the seal, (to June) was also granted. Edelweiss filed no further motions to extend the seal but, for two years after the seal period expired, did not move to lift the seal despite two admonitions from the court. In June 2018, Edelweiss finally asked the court to unseal the case but did so incorrectly. Ultimately, the clerk of the court informed Edelweiss that it had unsealed the action around December 4, 2018. Weeks later, Edelweiss began serving the defendants. The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the defendants. The time from October 2015 to December 2018 is included in the three-year period during which service must be accomplished because, even if Edelweiss was unable to serve the summons until the seal was lifted, the continuing of the seal after October 2015 was not a circumstance beyond Edelweiss’s control, Code of Civ. Proc. 583.240.

Capra v. Capra

Docket: C084032(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 22, 2020

Judge: Harry E. Hull, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Real Estate & Property Law

Heirs contested rights to a family cabin and a federal use permit authorizing the cabin on federal land. Plaintiffs alleged the defendant was wrongfully claiming sole ownership of the cabin and permit, and was threatening to sell the property. Three actions taken by the trial court were the subject of this appeal: (1) the court sustained defendant’s demurrer without prejudice and dismissed the action solely based on lack of jurisdiction; (2) it denied plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify defendant’s attorney; and (3) it denied plaintiffs’ application for injunctive relief filed while this appeal was pending. Plaintiffs contended the trial court erred in each instance. In his cross-appeal, defendant contended the trial court erred by not dismissing the action with prejudice. After review, the Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held: (1) the trial court had jurisdiction to try this matter; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify counsel; and (3) plaintiffs’ application for injunctive relief pending this appeal was now moot. An application for injunctive relief and defendant’s arguments for dismissing with prejudice could be considered by the trial court on remand.

California v. Scott

Docket: E074939(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 22, 2020

Judge: Raphael

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A decade after his conviction for attempted murder, defendant-appellant Derrick Scott filed an unsuccessful petition to set it aside under Penal Code section 1170.95. On appeal, his counsel filed a brief asserting no grounds for relief. Scott was invited to file a brief of his own but did not. Following the law that the Court of Appeal generally has applied to postjudgment appeals in the last decade, the Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned. "We believe that we typically should issue such a dismissal through a concise unpublished order, but we publish this opinion to explain why that practice is our preferred course for most uncontested postjudgment appeals."

People v. Brooks

Docket: A158988(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 22, 2020

Judge: Streeter

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2007, Brooks was charged with 21 counts of robbery, with most counts carrying an enhancement for personal use of a firearm. He pled no contest to three counts of second-degree robbery, with the accompanying firearm use allegations, in exchange for a stipulated prison term of 19 years eight months. At the sentencing hearing, no testimony was taken or evidence introduced of his military service or substance abuse issues. The court imposed the agreed sentence. In 2019, Brooks filed a petition to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.91(b)(1). Brooks alleged that he was a member of the U.S. military, he developed a substance abuse problem as a result of such service, he was sentenced before 2015, and neither his military service nor his substance abuse was considered as mitigation during his sentencing hearing. The court of appeal affirmed the summary denial of relief. In his plea bargain, Brooks agreed to a stipulated term, so the court had no power to resentence him. The court noted that Brooks’s military service and his drug use were known to the sentencing court, that Brooks never requested those facts be considered in mitigation, and that there was no proof his drug use was caused by his military service.