CA Pub. Decisions

Costs and attorney fees awarded for responding to an appeal of an order awarding costs and attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 425.16(c)--for the expense of responding to a SLAPP--includes costs and attorney fees incurred in challenging the undertaking submitted by the plaintiff to stay enforcement of the award pending appeal.

Trial court should not automatically disqualify public defender whenever public defender's office has previously represented a prosecution witness. Instead, the Trial court should evaluate totality of circumstances in determining whether there is a reasonable possibility that the individual attorney representing defendant has either obtained confidential information about the witness that was collected by his or her office, or may inadvertently acquire such information through file review, office conversation, and or otherwise. In doing so, trial court should consider: 1) length of time that has elapsed since public defender's office represented witness, 2) nature and notoriety of witness's case, 3) whether attorney currently handling case was member of public defender's office at time of witness's case and whether attorney responsible for witness's case remains with office, 4) nature and extent of any measures or procedures established by public defender to ensure information acquired by deputy in a previous case is made unavailable to deputy handling current case. In a case that does not involve direct and personal representation of witness, courts should normally accept representation of counsel as an officer of court. This makes is so that he or she has not in fact come into possession of any confidential information acquired from the witness and will not seek to do so. The trial court erred in disqualifying public defender where public defender's office had represented prosecution witness nine years earlier. Records of the case were kept at an off-site unknown location to an assigned deputy who did not join the office until four years after the witness's case. The deputy said he did not feel the office's previous representation of witness would affect cross-examination and the defendant objected to change of counsel. Trial court erred in disqualifying public defender based on office's representation of victim/witness in the criminal proceedings over a decade earlier where the assigned deputy represented had no personal loyalty to the former-client/witness that would constrain an investigation or examination. The defendant objected to removal of counsel.

Trial court should not automatically disqualify public defender whenever public defender's office has previously represented a prosecution witness. Instead, the Trial court should evaluate totality of circumstances in determining whether there is a reasonable possibility that the individual attorney representing defendant has either obtained confidential information about the witness that was collected by his or her office, or may inadvertently acquire such information through file review, office conversation, and or otherwise. In doing so, trial court should consider: 1) length of time that has elapsed since public defender's office represented witness, 2) nature and notoriety of witness's case, 3) whether attorney currently handling case was member of public defender's office at time of witness's case and whether attorney responsible for witness's case remains with office, 4) nature and extent of any measures or procedures established by public defender to ensure information acquired by deputy in a previous case is made unavailable to deputy handling current case. In a case that does not involve direct and personal representation of witness, courts should normally accept representation of counsel as an officer of court. This makes is so that he or she has not in fact come into possession of any confidential information acquired from the witness and will not seek to do so. The trial court erred in disqualifying public defender where public defender's office had represented prosecution witness nine years earlier. Records of the case were kept at an off-site unknown location to an assigned deputy who did not join the office until four years after the witness's case. The deputy said he did not feel the office's previous representation of witness would affect cross-examination and the defendant objected to change of counsel. Trial court erred in disqualifying public defender based on office's representation of victim/witness in the criminal proceedings over a decade earlier where the assigned deputy represented had no personal loyalty to the former-client/witness that would constrain an investigation or examination. The defendant objected to removal of counsel.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Street gang firearm possession statutes, which make firearm possession a felony where perpetrator is active participant in street gang, do not require proof that charged firearm possession was connected with underlying gang participation.

Street gang firearm possession statutes, which make firearm possession a felony where perpetrator is active participant in street gang, do not require proof that charged firearm possession was connected with underlying gang participation.

Where former husband remarried prior to distribution of assets accumulated during prior marriage. Subsequently sued and settled with his foreign solicitors whom he claimed committed malpractice by failing to advise him that under English law, his remarriage barred his ancillary claim to assets accumulated during prior marriage and held in name of former wife. The doctrine of judicial estoppel barred him from claiming a community property interest in those assets.

In suit for alleged breach of promissory note where defendant claimed that note was extinguished by novation stating plaintiff would write off note on his Canadian taxes. The trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to exclude Canadian tax returns on basis that they were not relevant and fell within privilege accorded to state and federal tax returns.

Where former husband remarried prior to distribution of assets accumulated during prior marriage. Subsequently sued and settled with his foreign solicitors whom he claimed committed malpractice by failing to advise him that under English law, his remarriage barred his ancillary claim to assets accumulated during prior marriage and held in name of former wife. The doctrine of judicial estoppel barred him from claiming a community property interest in those assets.

In suit for alleged breach of promissory note where defendant claimed that note was extinguished by novation stating plaintiff would write off note on his Canadian taxes, trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to exclude Canadian tax returns on basis that they were not relevant and fell within privilege accorded to state and federal tax returns.

A decision regarding terminating the court's jurisdiction over a child and awarding legal and physical custody.

A criminal law decision regarding burglary and penetration by foreign object.

A decision regarding breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraud.