CA Pub. Decisions

Where defendant was prosecuted on different charges in two different counties based on evidence obtained as a result of a single arrest, and court in first case ruled that probable cause existed for his arrest which ruling was affirmed on appeal he was barred by doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating probable cause issue.

Doctrine of collateral estoppel bars "whistleblower" action by state employee where there has been a final quasi judicial determination by the State Personnel Board that adverse actions against employee were not taken because he or she reported wrongdoing.

Doctrine of collateral estoppel bars "whistleblower" action by state employee where there has been a final quasi judicial determination by the State Personnel Board that adverse actions against employee were not taken because he or she reported wrongdoing.

Prosecution under Penal Code Sec. 186.10(a) for money laundering based on conducting a transaction within a seven day period "involving a monetary instrument or instruments of a total value exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000)" with either the specific intent to promote or carry on criminal activity or "knowing that the monetary instrument represents the proceeds of, or is derived directly or indirectly from the proceeds of, criminal activity" requires proof that defendant's entire business was illegal, there were deposit(s) of $5,000 or more in criminally derived funds, and there was a transfer of all funds out of the account. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction under Sec. 186.10(a) where it showed that funds were derived from defendant's "escort service" that was used to conduct an illegal prostitution business; defendant failed to show that funds allegedly generated by his other legitimate businesses and deposited into the same account as the escort service funds were significant; and defendant used the cash deposits with the specific intent to promote and carry on his prostitution business by paying for office space to conduct the prostitution business through his escort business, paying for a residence that allowed him to retain control over the women and to obtain all their earnings from prostitution in exchange for providing them with shelter, and paying for the cell phones that were used to carry on the prostitution business.

Prosecution under Penal Code Sec. 186.10(a) for money laundering based on conducting a transaction within a seven day period "involving a monetary instrument or instruments of a total value exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000)" with either the specific intent to promote or carry on criminal activity or "knowing that the monetary instrument represents the proceeds of, or is derived directly or indirectly from the proceeds of, criminal activity" requires proof that defendant's entire business was illegal, there were deposit(s) of $5,000 or more in criminally derived funds, and there was a transfer of all funds out of the account. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction under Sec. 186.10(a) where it showed that funds were derived from defendant's "escort service" that was used to conduct an illegal prostitution business; defendant failed to show that funds allegedly generated by his other legitimate businesses and deposited into the same account as the escort service funds were significant; and defendant used the cash deposits with the specific intent to promote and carry on his prostitution business by paying for office space to conduct the prostitution business through his escort business, paying for a residence that allowed him to retain control over the women and to obtain all their earnings from prostitution in exchange for providing them with shelter, and paying for the cell phones that were used to carry on the prostitution business.

Where claimant suffered industrial injury on first and only day of jury duty, WCAB correctly based disability benefits award against county on his usual pay, rather than his jury pay.

Under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, and Cunningham v. California (2007) 127 S.Ct. 856, a defendant is not entitled to have a jury determine the facts upon which the trial court relies to impose consecutive as opposed to concurrent sentences.

Punitive damage award of $26 million was excessive where compensatory damages totaled $6.5 million, damages were largely in the way of restitution to single plaintiff for funds defendants improperly took from it, and harm defendants caused was solely economic and did not involve a "vulnerable victim." In such cases, punitive damage awards in excess of compensatory damages violate due process.

Punitive damage award of $26 million was excessive where compensatory damages totaled $6.5 million, damages were largely in the way of restitution to single plaintiff for funds defendants improperly took from it, and harm defendants caused was solely economic and did not involve a "vulnerable victim." In such cases, punitive damage awards in excess of compensatory damages violate due process.

Punitive damage award of $26 million was excessive where compensatory damages totaled $6.5 million, damages were largely in the way of restitution to single plaintiff for funds defendants improperly took from it, and harm defendants caused was solely economic and did not involve a "vulnerable victim." In such cases, punitive damage awards in excess of compensatory damages violate due process.

Trial court correctly sustained without leave to amend a demurrer brought by wholesale generators, sellers, and traders of electricity to antitrust and unfair competition complaint filed by public entities and retail purchasers of electricity, whose action would have required superior court to determine reasonable rates for wholesale power sales, on basis that Federal Power Act preempts the field of wholesale electricity market control and regulation, and that filed rate doctrine, which prohibits state and federal courts applying state law from setting a rate different from that set by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, bars requests for penalties for alleged anticompetitive conduct that would potentially interfere with FERC supervision of market-based rates and any enforcement activities allowed under FERC procedures.

Trial court correctly sustained without leave to amend a demurrer brought by wholesale generators, sellers, and traders of electricity to antitrust and unfair competition complaint filed by public entities and retail purchasers of electricity, whose action would have required superior court to determine reasonable rates for wholesale power sales, on basis that Federal Power Act preempts the field of wholesale electricity market control and regulation, and that filed rate doctrine, which prohibits state and federal courts applying state law from setting a rate different from that set by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, bars requests for penalties for alleged anticompetitive conduct that would potentially interfere with FERC supervision of market-based rates and any enforcement activities allowed under FERC procedures.

In the present time, we are so obsessed with Search Engine Optimization and Google Page Rank that many of the webmasters tend to think that SEO.

Where attorney for plaintiff failed to appear for mandatory settlement conference, then plaintiff voluntarily dismissed action without prejudice prior to scheduled hearing on order to show cause re "Dismissal and/or sanctions," order vacating the voluntary dismissal and dismissing with prejudice was in excess of court's authority as it violated plaintiff's absolute right to dismiss the action without prejudice at any time prior to the commencement of trial. Discretionary dismissals for lack of prosecution under two year statute are without prejudice.