Daily Opinion Summaries for California Appellate Districts - 04/14/2011

Daily Opinion Summaries California Appellate Districts April 14, 2011 FindLaw.com Daily Opinion Summaries Newsletter Quick Links Cases & Codes Careers LawBrain Legal Market Center Lawyer Directory Lawyer Marketing Table of Contents LATEST SUMMARIES Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing, Sanctions • People v. Pacheco Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law • Wills v. Superior Court of Orange County • Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. • Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs and Shapiro v. Goff • Marriage of Ruiz • Leek v. Cooper • Vanderpol v. Starr View FindLaw's new Case Summary Blog for California Case Law. FindLaw's case summaries are copyrighted material and are not intended for republication without prior approval. You may, however, freely redistribute this e-mail in its entirety. To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. SPONSOR LATEST SUMMARIES Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing, Sanctions People v. Pacheco, No. H035418 Conviction and sentencing of defendant for assault is upheld as modified where trial court properly treated a juvenile court adjudication as a strike prior for purposes of the Three Strikes law. Read more... Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law Wills v. Superior Court of Orange County, No. G043054 In a dispute involving the scope of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to five of her six causes of action, and the remaining cause of action fails because an employer may reasonably distinguish between disability caused misconduct and the disability itself when the misconduct includes threats or violence against coworkers. Read more... SPONSOR Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc., No. A127489 In a labor and wages dispute under Labor Code section 1194, summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed because defendant may not artificially designate the workweek in such a way as to circumvent the statutory requirement to pay overtime rates and where restrictions placed on plaintiffs during their on-call hours, including the requirement that they sleep onsite and remain within no more than 45 minutes of worksite at all times, subjected plaintiffs to control of defendant for the full 14-day hitch, so that the on-call hours constituted time worked. Read more... Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs and Shapiro v. Goff, No. B220639 In a appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the defendant-law firm, judgment is reversed where arbitrators exceeded their powers by ruling that the arbitration was binding. Read more... Marriage of Ruiz, No. E049310 In a dispute arising from apportionment of property during a dissolution matter, judgment by trial court apportioning of a lump-sum payout of workers compensation benefits wife received approximately three years before their separation and awarding husband Epstein credits is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) characterization of workers compensation award was not an abuse of discretion; but 2) award of Epstein credits was erroneous. Read more... Leek v. Cooper, No. C061510 In a labor and employment action against a corporation and its sole shareholder alleging causes of action for age discrimination and violation of the California Family Rights Act, summary judgment with cost in favor of defendant is affirmed as modified, where the proper test for determining who is an employer under the Act is not the degree to which that person controls the employee, and plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts for an alter ego theory of liability. Read more... Vanderpol v. Starr, No. D056599 In a dispute between adjoining property owners over trees at or near their common border action for private nuisance based on spite fence statute, Civil Code section 841.14, and ordinary nuisance, sections 3479 and 3481, judgment and order of injunction by trial court is reversed where: 1) a row of trees can be a structure in the nature of a fence for purposes of section 841.4; and 2) special jury verdict was defective such that plaintiffs were not entitled to an award of damages. Read more... SPONSOR Feedback We value your comments! Please take a moment to tell us what you think by sending us an e-mail. Subscription Information Click here to subscribe to a FindLaw Newsletter. To unsubscribe, click here. Advertising Information For more information about advertising in FindLaw Newsletters, click here. 800 W. California Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086

You are currently subscribed to calapp-caselaw as: ideola09.petra@blogger.com .
To manage your newsletter accounts go to: http://newsletters.findlaw.com/sub/review-account.jsp