The Unacknowledged Clash Between the Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Religion Clauses and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and UC Davis law professor emeritus Alan Brownstein comment on a largely unacknowledged clash between religious accommodations and exemptions on the one hand, and core free speech principles which the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, on the other. Amar and Brownstein describe this apparent conflict and suggest that the Court begin to resolve the conflict when it decides two cases later this term presenting the question of the scope of the “ministerial exception.”

Read More

Hedayatzadeh v. City of Del Mar

Docket: D074690(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 22, 2020

Judge: Joan Irion

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury, Real Estate & Property Law

Farid Hedayatzadeh (Hedayatzadeh) appealed following the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Del Mar (the City) in his lawsuit arising out of the death of his 19-year-old son, who was struck by a train on an oceanfront bluff in Del Mar on property owned by North County Transit District (NCTD). Specifically, Hedayatzadeh argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his single cause of action alleging a dangerous condition of public property based primarily on the City's failure to erect any barriers to prevent pedestrians from accessing NCTD's train tracks. On the night at issue, Javad Hedayatzadeh and his friends walked around the guardrail at the end of 13th Street, down an unimproved dirt embankment, and crossed the train tracks. The group then walked northbound on the west side of the tracks to a spot where they sat and smoked marijuana. They knew they were trespassing on NCTD property. At various points along the railroad right-of-way, NCTD has installed signs stating "No Trespassing," "Danger" and "Railroad Property." Javad noticed a freight train coming from the south and told his friends that he was going to use his phone to take a video "selfie" of himself next to the train. As Javad was near the train tracks taking the selfie, he was struck by the train and killed. After filing an unsuccessful claim under the Government Claims Act, Javad's father, Hedayatzadeh, filed this lawsuit against the City, NCTD, and BNSF Railway Company, which allegedly operated the freight train. The Court of Appeal concluded that, as a matter of law, the City's property at the end of 13th Street did not constitute a dangerous condition of public property even though the City did not take action to prevent pedestrians from accessing the train tracks on NCTD's adjacent right-of-way by walking around the guardrail at the end of the street.

Zemek v. Super. Ct.

Docket: E072844(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 22, 2020

Judge: Manuel A. Ramirez

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Trusts & Estates

Sixty-nine year old Pamelia Powell had been prescribed multiple central nervous system depressants, with additive effects. In April 2016 and again in May 2016, she had to be hospitalized for overdoses. In between the two hospital stays, petitioner Marilyn Zemek, who was already Powell’s friend, agreed to become her paid caretaker. She acknowledged at the time that Powell needed “constant companionship,” including help with “properly taking her medication.” Later in May 2016, petitioner took Powell to petitioner’s former attorney. He prepared new estate planning documents for Powell that left everything to petitioner. In June 2016, petitioner left Powell home alone for at least two days and perhaps as much as four days. During that time, Powell died of an overdose of her prescription medications. After Powell’s death, petitioner bought items using Powell’s credit card and emptied Powell’s bank accounts. Based on this evidence, a magistrate held petitioner to answer for crimes including murder, elder abuse, and grand theft. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion to set aside the information. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing there was insufficient evidence: (1) of malice; (2) that she was the legal cause of Powell’s death; and (3) that the money she took did not belong to her. The Court rejected these contentions and affirmed the magistrate court’s decision.

In re A.J.

Docket: B297762(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 23, 2020

Judge: Moor

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's dispositional orders as to father only, entered on May 4, 2015, including the denial and termination of reunification services for father only. The court also vacated the juvenile court's April 30, 2019 order terminating parental rights. The court held that the department failed to show that the inadequate notice error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that father has shown a miscarriage of justice through the denial of his right to appear and his right to counsel. The court remanded with instructions to appoint counsel for father and to conduct a new dispositional hearing under sections 358 and 360, taking into account any evidence developed after the May 4, 2015 hearing that may bear upon the issues to be decided at the new dispositional hearing.

Hance v. Super Store Industries

Docket: F075852(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 23, 2020

Judge: Brad R. Hill

Areas of Law: Legal Ethics

This dispute arose between two attorneys representing the plaintiff class in an approved settlement. After the trial court made an award of attorney fees and divided the fees in accordance with the alleged fee division agreement, appellant challenged the enforceability of that agreement and the division of the attorney fee award between himself and respondent. The Court of Appeal reversed and held that the trial court abused its discretion by enforcing the fee division agreement, when the undisputed facts showed a clear violation of former Rules of Profession Conduct 3-410, which rendered the agreement unenforceable. The intent of the rule was to require the attorney to disclose the lack of professional liability insurance to the client, at the time the client retained the attorney, so the client could consider that information in making the decision to retain or not retain the attorney. The court remanded for the trail court to determine whether principles of equity entitled the law firm to some measure of compensation. In this case, the trial court did not reach the issues of whether respondent should recover compensation for his attorney services on a quantum meruit basis, despite invalidation of the fee division agreement for violation of former rule 3-410 and, if so, how much he should recover.

Jensen v. iShares Trust

Docket: A153511(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 23, 2020

Judge: Kline

Areas of Law: Securities Law

Investors purchased shares of BlackRock iShares Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) and suffered financial losses when their shares were sold pursuant to “market orders” or “stop-loss orders” during a “flash crash” in August 2015, when ETF trading prices fell dramatically. The investors claim that BlackRock’s registration statements, prospectuses, and amendments thereto issued or filed between 2012 and 2015, were false or misleading in that they failed to sufficiently disclose the risks associated with flash crashes. The investors sued, alleging violations of disclosure requirements under the Securities Act of 1933. 15 U.S.C. 77k. The court of appeal affirmed that the investors lacked standing. Liability under sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act applies only to initial offerings; the investors purchased their ETF shares on the secondary market. The court rejected claims citing section 11, under which a plaintiff has standing if shares purchased in the secondary market can be traced back to an offering made under a misleading registration statement. Given the greater availability of information about potential investments to secondary market investors, limiting the stricter liability imposed by the 1933 Act to primary market transactions is not necessarily unreasonable. In contrast to the “catchall” provisions of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 77j(b)[ 22]—sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act “apply more narrowly but give rise to liability more readily.”