CA Pub. Decisions

Plaintiff, a trash truck driver, filed this suit, denominated a class action, against his former employer, a private company. He alleged the employer had violated the Labor Code by, among other things, denying meal and rest periods. The employer responded with a petition to compel arbitration based on a written agreement with plaintiff. The agreement contained a provision waiving class arbitrations. It also precluded an employee from acting in â€

Plaintiff, a trash truck driver, filed this suit, denominated a class action, against his former employer, a private company. He alleged the employer had violated the Labor Code by, among other things, denying meal and rest periods. The employer responded with a petition to compel arbitration based on a written agreement with plaintiff. The agreement contained a provision waiving class arbitrations. It also precluded an employee from acting in â€

E.S. appeals from the judgment of the juvenile court sustaining a petition alleging that he comes within the provisions of section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. His court-appointed counsel initially filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent investigation of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071]. After conducting that review, we issued an order requesting supplemental briefing on the issue whether the Humboldt County Superior Court erred in denying appellant's motion for a new jurisdictional hearing.
Concluding it was error to deny the motion for a new jurisdictional hearing, we shall reverse and remand for such a hearing.

E.S. appeals from the judgment of the juvenile court sustaining a petition alleging that he comes within the provisions of section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. His court-appointed counsel initially filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent investigation of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071]. After conducting that review, we issued an order requesting supplemental briefing on the issue whether the Humboldt County Superior Court erred in denying appellant's motion for a new jurisdictional hearing.
Concluding it was error to deny the motion for a new jurisdictional hearing, we shall reverse and remand for such a hearing.

In this case we construe the statutory speedy sentencing provisions contained in Penal Code sections 1203.2a and 1381[1] with regard to defendants who are placed on probation with the imposition of sentence suspended for one offense and who, while still on probation, are convicted of an unrelated misdemeanor or felony and imprisoned in either county jail or state prison on the unrelated offense. We also consider how the two statutes relate to each other.
For a defendant placed on probation with imposition of sentence suspended who is subsequently incarcerated for a second offense, section 1203.2a provides that the court that granted probation â€

In this case we construe the statutory speedy sentencing provisions contained in Penal Code sections 1203.2a and 1381[1] with regard to defendants who are placed on probation with the imposition of sentence suspended for one offense and who, while still on probation, are convicted of an unrelated misdemeanor or felony and imprisoned in either county jail or state prison on the unrelated offense. We also consider how the two statutes relate to each other.
For a defendant placed on probation with imposition of sentence suspended who is subsequently incarcerated for a second offense, section 1203.2a provides that the court that granted probation â€

This case arises from efforts by the State of California (State) to obtain insurance coverage for property damage liability imposed in a federal lawsuit as a result of discharges from the â€

This case arises from efforts by the State of California (State) to obtain insurance coverage for property damage liability imposed in a federal lawsuit as a result of discharges from the â€

The Legislature recently amended the law with respect to reimbursement to local governments for costs imposed as a result of ballot measures. The amended statute provides that the state need not provide reimbursement if â€

The Legislature recently amended the law with respect to reimbursement to local governments for costs imposed as a result of ballot measures. The amended statute provides that the state need not provide reimbursement if â€

The Legislature recently amended the law with respect to reimbursement to local governments for costs imposed as a result of ballot measures. The amended statute provides that the state need not provide reimbursement if â€

A modification decision.

HealthMarkets, Inc. (HealthMarkets), challenges the denial of its motion to quash service of summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction. HealthMarkets is a nonresident holding company and has no contacts with the State of California. Mid‑West National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee (Mid-West) is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of HealthMarkets. The trial court concluded that Mid-West's contacts with this state should be attributed to HealthMarkets for purposes of specific personal jurisdiction. We conclude that specific personal jurisdiction over a parent company based on the activities of its subsidiary or sub-subsidiary is appropriate only if the parent purposefully directed those activities at this state. Absent evidence that HealthMarkets purposefully directed the activities of Mid-West toward this state, we conclude that there is no basis for personal jurisdiction over HealthMarkets and that the motion to quash must be granted.

Appellant Alejandro Roa was convicted by jury of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215; undesignated section references are to that code), and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), with a finding that he personally used a firearm in the carjacking (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Sentenced to a term of 15 years, appellant contends that the evidence he used a firearm during the offense was insufficient. Respondent opposes this contention and also asserts that the abstract of judgment should be corrected in various respects. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the firearm enhancement. In so doing, we consider factors concerning out-of-court identifications that were articulated in People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252 (Cuevas). We affirm the judgment, after modifying it in accordance with one of respondent's requests.