California lemon law rules

The trial court ruled, after a lengthy trial, that the tenure, dismissal, and layoff laws violated the equal protection clause. The trial court applied a “strict scrutiny” standard, meaning the state had a heavy burden of establishing a compelling interest to justify the laws and that distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to further its purpose.  Based on the evidence presented at trial, the trial court found that the short review period resulted in grossly ineffective teachers being given tenure, and that the termination procedures for teachers was so costly and time consuming that “efficient yet fair dismissal of a grossly ineffective teacher [is] illusory.”  Evidence was presented at trial that because it is so difficult to terminate teachers, a “dance of the lemons” occurs, where grossly ineffective teachers are shuffled to low performing schools with predominantly minority and low-income populations, rather … [Read more...] about California Teacher Tenure Laws Upheld by Appellate Court

Nursing Industry Forces Arbitration upon Residents of Assisted Care CommunitiesThe right to sue negligent corporations for any injuries their actions may cause is taken for granted, so the families of many nursing neglect and abuse victims were shocked to learn that they had forfeited this right when admitting their relatives into nursing homes that snuck arbitration clauses into their living agreements. These clauses were often placed into the fine print that most people give no more than a moment’s notice to and have prevented many families with legitimate disputes from receiving the justice they sought. … [Read more...] about Government Agency Denies Funding to Nursing Homes Requiring Arbitration Clauses

The collection side lost another FDCPA case earlier this year when the Supreme Court ruled in Jerman v. Carlisle that a law firm’s letter telling an alleged debtor she must dispute a debt “in writing” violated the act, which does not specify any particular form of communication. The court said the statute’s “bona fide error defense” does not extend to an error of law—making it clear that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. (Though not pertinent to the case, the law firm was in error trying to foreclose on a home after the debt had been paid. The homeowner brought a class action under the act.) … [Read more...] about Payback: Lawyers on Both Sides of Collection are Feeling Debt’s Sting

The plaintiffs bar really doesn’t like proposals to give instructions on harm to nonparties at the end of the case. Of­ten called similar-fact evidence, jurors can use it for limited purposes to find liability. At the time the evidence is admitted, courts commonly warn jurors against using it for punishment. Defense lawyers contend, however, that a second instruction just before jurors deliberate would go far toward blunting plaintiff closing arguments that try to universalize cases by leaving panels with pleas to “send a message” and similar exhortations. … [Read more...] about Punitive Precision

On April 11, 2016, Los Angeles District Judge Gary Klausner ruled that there were enough similarities between “Taurus” and “Stairway to Heaven” for a jury to decide the claim. On June 23, 2016, following a trial, an eight-member panel jury unanimously found that the similarities between the songs did not amount to copyright infringement. The decision came one year after a jury (in a lawsuit filed in the Central District of California before Judge John A. Kronstadt) ruled that Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” (produced by Pharrell Williams) infringed Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up.” In the Blurred Lines case, Thicke and Williams were ordered to pay $7.4 million (reduced to $5.3 million) and ongoing royalties to Gaye’s family. The Blurred Lines decision is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. … [Read more...] about Led Zeppelin Prevails in Copyright Infringement Case: Now on Appeal in Ninth Circuit