Vol. 35 No. 20 CURFEW ENFORCEMENT

California and the nation are experiencing large-scale community reaction following the tragic death, at the hands of law enforcement, of George Floyd in Minneapolis.  Many people have been responsible in how they have exercised their rights to free assembly and free speech and in the way they have expressed their perspectives concerning law enforcement agency […]

Vol. 35 No. 28 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE PLAINTIFFS’ EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR THE INJURIES THEY SUSTAINED IN RESPONDING TO PEACE OFFICER’S REQUEST TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE

On August 27, 2020, in the case of Gund v. County of Trinity,[1] the California Supreme Court found that plaintiffs, who were injured by an attacker in the course of responding to a peace officer request to provide assistance to their neighbor who had called 911 requesting help, were limited to workers’ compensation benefits for […]

Vol. 35 No. 27 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PROVIDES SEVEN-FACTOR TEST THAT A TRIAL COURT SHOULD USE IN RULING ON A MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DIRECTED TO A THIRD PARTY

In the August 2020 case of Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Stephan),[1] the California Supreme Court directed trial courts to explicitly consider and balance seven factors in ruling on a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed to a third party. Background In May 2018 in Facebook v. Superior Court (Hunter),[2] the California Supreme […]

Vol. 35 No. 26 NINTH CIRCUIT FINDS THAT CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 32310, WHICH BANS POSSESSION OF LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES (“LCMs”), VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT

On August 14, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Duncan v. Becerra,[1] held that a California statute that banned possession of large-capacity magazines (“LCMs”) holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, violated the Second Amendment.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court held that California Penal Code section 32310 burdened protected conduct and, applying […]

Vol. 35 No. 24 THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE “CALIFORNIA RULE” IN CASE OF ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION v. ALAMEDA COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

Background The California Supreme Court recently reviewed the validity of the “California Rule” in the context of the case entitled Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Ass’n.[1] The Court began its analysis with a discussion of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”; Stats. 2012, ch. 296, section […]

Vol. 35 No. 23 DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BARRING DOJ FROM USING THREE NEW CONDITIONS AS FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS

In the July 2020 case of City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Barr,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a permanent injunction barring the United States Department of Justice from imposing certain conditions for providing funding for state and local criminal justice programs through Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants.  However, the Court determined […]