Latest 5 Cases: Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. (Civil Procedure), People v. O'Hearn (Constitutional Law), People v. Falcon (Criminal Law)

The Affordable Care Act Challenge and the Senate Runoff Elections in Georgia

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the third challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that has made it before the U.S. Supreme Court, and considers how the case will play in the upcoming Georgia runoff elections. Dorf argues that absent a dramatic and highly unusual development—like a Supreme Court decision rejecting the ACA challenge in the next few weeks—that should help the Democratic candidates in Georgia’s runoff elections.

Read More

Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc.

Docket: D075479(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 9, 2020

Judge: Cynthia Aaron

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law

Defendants Fusion Buffet, Inc., Xiao Yan Chen, and Zhao Jia Lin appealed postjudgment orders of the trial court regarding attorney fees and costs. Cruz was employed as a server at the Great Plaza Buffet restaurant, which was operated by Fusion Buffet, from approximately February 2014 to late January 2016. Chen and Lin served as officers and owners of Fusion Buffet and managed the Great Plaza Buffet restaurant. In her complaint, Cruz alleged defendants: (1) failed to pay minimum wage; (2) failed to pay overtime; (3) failed to pay meal period compensation; (4) failed to pay rest period compensation; (5) failed to furnish timely and accurate wage and hour statements; (6) converted earned gratuities; (7) took unlawful deductions from wages; (8) failed to indemnify for all necessary expenditures or losses; and other causes of action stemming from her work at Fusion Buffet. In the complaint, Cruz sought to impose liability against Chen and Lin under an alter ego theory, alleging, among other things, that Chen and Lin commingled their assets with those of Fusion Buffet and that they failed to maintain corporate formalities. After a three-day bench trial, the court found in Cruz's favor on seven out of ten causes of action, and in favor of Fusion Buffet on the remaining three. The trial court determined Cruz was the prevailing party and found she was entitled to recover fees and costs incurred. The Court of Appeal determined defendants failed to demonstrate reversible error in the trial court's determinations with respect to the postjudgment orders and affirmed them all.

People v. O'Hearn

Docket: A158676(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 9, 2020

Judge: Kline

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Legal Ethics

Police responding to a report of O’Hearn acting erratically had previously dealt with him. They suspected O’Hearn had “mental health issues” but, after he threatened to kill his neighbors, they arrested O’Hearn for making criminal threats and violating conditions of probation. O’Hearn had four prior felony convictions. During the ensuing months, O’Hearn was represented by three attorneys and pled guilty. Then-counsel Selby failed to sign O’Hearn's Cruz/Vargas Waiver. The PSR noted that O’Hearn had bi-polar disorder and was not taking his medication at the time of the offense. Another attorney filed a motion to vacate the plea, arguing that it was the consequence of ineffective assistance. Counsel “barely met" with O'Hearn, failed to attend the sentencing hearing, lost the case file, never explained potential defenses, did not inquire about O'Hearn's extensive mental health history, and did not advise him of the consequences or alternatives. O’Hearn’s 800-page medical record showed hospitalizations for mental health problems and a history of schizophrenia. Selby had been repeatedly found to have failed to provide competent legal services. The victims, one of whom had a criminal history, had interacted with O’Hearn for many years. Conviction of making criminal threats requires specific intent, which can be negated by a mental disorder. The court of appeal reversed the denial of O’Hearn’s motion to vacate his plea. Selby never asserted any strategic reason for failing to learn whether his client’s mental state provided the basis for a possible mental defense and the deficient representation was prejudicial.

People v. Falcon

Docket: B296392(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 9, 2020

Judge: Stratton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of defendant's petition seeking resentencing under Senate Bill 1437 under the theory that he entered a plea of no contest to avoid a conviction of first or second degree murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In this case, the trial court found the record of conviction showed that defendant entered a plea to second degree murder as an aider and abettor to the actual shooter. The court held that the trial court did not err in finding defendant had failed to make a prima facie showing that he fell within the provisions of Penal Code section 1170.95. Although the court agreed with defendant that the trial court erred in relying on the records of his co-defendant, the court found that the error was harmless given that the evidence in the preliminary hearing transcript was virtually identical to the evidence at trial. The court explained that a sentence modification is not a criminal trial, but rather an act of lenity, and section 1170.95 is an act of lenity. In this case, if the trial court acted erroneously in declining to appoint counsel, that error does not constitute a violation of defendant's constitutional rights.

People v. Johnson

Dockets: B299044(Second Appellate District) , B302697(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 9, 2020

Judge: Kenneth R. Yegan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Court of Appeal consolidated these cases and affirmed the orders denying defendants' petitions to vacate their first degree murder convictions and obtain resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437, which added Penal Code section 1170.95. The court held that defendants cannot seek relief under the felony-murder provision of section 1170.95, because they were convicted of provocative act murder, not felony murder. The court also held that defendants are not eligible for relief under the natural and probable consequences provision of section 1170.95; Defendant Baker-Riley was the direct perpetrator of the crimes committed during the home-invasion robbery and he was also a direct perpetrator of the acts that provoked another individual to fire his gun; and Defendant Johnson, although he was an aider and abettor, was not convicted of murder pursuant to the natural and probable consequences doctrine but, rather, was convicted under the theory that a principle in the commission of the target crime had committed a nontarget crime that was a natural and probable consequence of the target crime. Finally, the court rejected Johnson's legislative intent argument and equal protection argument.

Semprini v. Wedbush Securities, Inc.

Docket: G057740(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 9, 2020

Judge: Goethals

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

Defendant Wedbush Securities, Inc. (Wedbush) was a securities broker-dealer firm that provided financial planning and investment products through its financial advisors. It classified its California financial advisors as exempt under the administrative exemption to California wage-and-hour law; the administrative exemption only applied if an employee earned a monthly “salary” equivalent to at least twice the state minimum wage. Wedbush pays its financial advisors on a commission-only basis. It uses a computer program to track the trades they make in a given month and then calculates the compensation owed based on what commission tier the employee met that month. The higher the employee’s total monthly gross product sales, the higher the percentage used to calculate the employee’s monthly commission payment. The central issue in this case is whether the Wedbush compensation model meets that administrative exemption requirement. The Court of Appeal determined the compensation plan based solely on commissions, with recoverable advances on future commissions, did not qualify as a “salary” for purposes of this exemption. Since the trial court found the employees in question were exempt and entered judgment for the employer, the Court reversed and remanded this matter for further proceedings.