The complaint that Washington is out of step with Main Street has been circulating for roughly as long as each metonym has been in use. But it’s seldom, if ever, been more true than at this moment in the coronavirus pandemic.

(WV Supreme Court of Appeals) - No. 18-0408

(California Court of Appeal) - Trial court's grant of a county sheriff's department's petition for a writ of administrative mandate seeking to vacate a hearing officer's decision concerning a terminated correctional officer's request for a Pitchess motion is reversed where: 1) an administrative hearing officer may rule on a Pitchess motion where Pitchess discovery is relevant; and 2) if Pitchess discovery is relevant to an officer's defense in a section 3304(b) hearing, the officer who is subject to discipline must have the opportunity to demonstrate the relevance of the personnel records of other officers and to obtain the records if they are relevant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff pled no contest to a felony charge of child abuse for injuries to his infant son, but filed this suit against Defendant, Fire Department, for the emergency medical aid that allegedly led to the death of his infant son. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion that was granted by the trial court on the grounds of government immunity. The appeals court held that government immunity applies to situations where fire fighters are supplying firefighting services, not emergency medical services.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed judgment on the verdict and remand for new trial. Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against Defendant for injuries suffered in a bus accident. The jury found for Plaintiff but awarded minimal damages on the belief from an expert testimony that future surgery would not be required. The court awarded Defendant costs and attorney fees under CCP 998. Plaintiff appealed on the grounds that the expert testimony exceeded the scope of permissible impeachment. The appeals court agreed and ordered the trial court to vacate its order on the post-trial motions.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The trial court's determination that the County Board of Supervisors' elimination of a longtime county Solid Waste Enforcement Officer's position was retaliation was upheld. The employee was running for sheriff as an Independent and the Board preferred Democrats.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The dismissal of a suit alleging that protracted employment termination proceedings violated the substantive due process rights of a Sheriff's Office employee following their DUI arrest was proper because it did not meet the high standard for making out substantive due process claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The panel affirmed Los Angeles County was not entitled to 11th Amendment immunity because the County was not an arm of the state when it administered the In-Home Supportive Services program. The court reversed on the collective period’s effective date.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a vehicle inspection company that leased land from the U.S. Navy failed to demonstrate that county tax authorities overvalued its leasehold interest by assuming that the lease would be extended beyond its original term. Affirmed the dismissal of the taxpayer's suit seeking a tax refund.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of taxpayers' suit alleging that a county government imposed a disproportionate tax on commercial and industrial properties in one particular township as opposed to similar types of properties elsewhere in the county. Held that the district court appropriately abstained from hearing this Equal Protection Clause suit under the comity doctrine.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a county appeals board erred in denying a hotel's request for a property tax refund. The hotel contended that the property valuation was incorrect. Reversed and remanded to the board for a new hearing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a homeowner was not entitled to a refund of property taxes. County officials correctly determined that there was a change in ownership of a house she co-owned with her sister, which triggered a reassessment of its value. Affirmed a judgment after trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a property owner could not proceed with a lawsuit seeking to recover tax overpayments. Affirmed a dismissal, in a case involving the determination of the real property's base-year value, a core metric for assessing property taxes in California.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a county tax assessor incorrectly determined the value, for property tax purposes, of a concessionaire's lease at San Francisco International Airport.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a taxpayer could not proceed with a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a voter-approved special property tax imposed by Los Angeles County. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners were not disqualified from taking a tax break. California has a special tax provision benefitting homeowners over 55 years of age when they relocate to a replacement dwelling in the same county. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action that implicates the public‘s interest in transparency and a public agency‘s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel, the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning whether billing invoices are privileged is reversed where invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heart of the privilege rule.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's ruling that Yelp lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of an anonymous reviewer whose identity was sought in connection with a defamation claim, finding no error in the determination that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the comments made by this person were defamatory, and concluding that this finding was sufficient to support the court order compelling the production of subpeonaed documents, for which reason the petition for writ of mandate was denied, but also finding the opposition to the motion to compel was substantially justified and reversing the order of sanctions against Yelp.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Issuing a peremptory writ of mandate and vacating the superior court's refusal to apply the Braddock rule, requiring that the court assess demand futility as to the board in place when an amended complaint is filed in a corporate action, because the rule is consistent with relevant aspects of California law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate and directing the superior court to modify an order sustaining real parties' demurrer to a plaintiff's cause of action and entering a new order overruling a portion of the demurrer because the lower court improperly analyzed the claim of conversion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Construing the appeal of a trial court order requiring a party whose ownership interests were contested to be a petition for writ of mandate and holding that partition statutes don't allow a court to order the manner of a property's partition before determining the ownership interests of the property at stake, reversing the court's order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed in part a ruling addressing how much money Los Angeles County may tax Time Warner Cable. The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Time Warner, argued that the county government was taxing it more than the law allowed for its use of public rights-of-way. On appeal, the Second Appellate District held that the county was not required to value the possessory interests based only on five percent of cable television revenue. In all other respects the panel affirmed the trial court's judgment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that ride-sharing company Uber must comply with administrative subpoenas issued by San Francisco's City Attorney seeking data submitted to the California Public Utility Commission. Affirmed the decision below, rejecting Uber's confidentiality arguments.

(MN Court of Appeals) - A19-1561

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an insurance action, in which defendant refused to pay plaintiff more than a single deductable payment following the defense of a class action and resulting settlement involving the county, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff is affirmed where county’s improper strip searches of arrestees over a four-year period constituted multiple occurrences under the insurance policy and defendant is responsible for paying deductibles to plaintiff with respect to each class member.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a civil action, arising from an auto accident allegedly caused by defendant school district's sign distracting and obstructing passing drivers on a roadway, the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff should not be permitted to serve late notice of a claim is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion in determining that defendant would be substantially prejudiced without any record evidence to support that determination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed complaint by Cook County residents raising Second Amendment claims challenging a ban on assault rifles because the issue had already been addressed by the court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed summary judgment against private landowners in a dispute regarding the boundaries of a hiking and biking trail built along the path of an old railroad easement. The landowners, whose properties abutted the rail corridor, sued the county government to challenge the nature, scope, and width of the corridor covered by the easement. The county counterclaimed asking the court to quiet title. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the county was entitled to prevail.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed on summary judgment that a YMCA was not liable for negligence in the death of a man who died of sudden cardiac arrest after playing soccer on a YMCA-owned field that was rented to a nonmember league. Held that the YMCA had no common-law duty of care to provide hands-on usage of an automatic external defibrillator on the facts here.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued in connection with a planned retirement community must be revised. The Sierra Club and others argued that the EIR lacked sufficient discussion of the project's air quality impacts. The California Supreme Court's opinion addressed some broad issues regarding judicial review of the adequacy of EIRs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a donut shop that was condemned through eminent domain because it was in the path of a proposed rail line was entitled to compensation for its lost goodwill. Reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that President Trump's executive order withholding all federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. California municipalities brought this suit arguing that the executive order violated the principle of Separation of Powers as well as the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the municipalities. However, the panel vacated the nationwide injunction based on an absence of specific findings justifying the broad scope, and remanded for further findings.

Phishing scammers need a little help scamming you!

A very lame attempt at defrauding Yahoo! users.

A fake Chase e-mail that has PHISHING written all over it.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.