ADA Case Tackles Major Access Liability Issue

 
If a person with disabilities is denied access in violation of the state’s Disabled Persons Act (CDPA), should they receive compensation just once for the violation or for each time they encountered the violation? A Long Beach resident is arguing the later, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is asking the California State Supreme Court for help understanding an “ambiguous” law. The case involves a paraplegic who sued over improperly curb cut-outs, and he argues that he should be paid for each time he encountered the problem. A lower court ruled the other way, awarding $17,000; he says the number should be $440,000. 
 
The case might be seen as important in the wake of California court closures and cutbacks. One of the legal arguments against the changes is that people with disabilities are, in effect, denied access to the courthouses. As one observer noted: If they moved the wheelchair ramp across the parking lot, that would be a violation. So why not if they move it 25 miles away?” This case might imply that liability goes beyond a single penalty to include each time a person is denied access, a significant change.
 
As usual, Tim Hull at The Courthouse News makes the complex easy… read it here

Court: Landlords Have Right To Weekend Access

CASES: In a decision with implications for renter’s rights in civil actions, the California Court of Appeals has ruled that tenants must grant landlords weekend access to property so they can show it to prospective buyers. The court was actually upholding a previous decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ruth Kwan in favor of a Santa Monica condo owner. The owner had sued the tenant for refusing to allow open-house viewing on weekends, although “by appointment” viewings were allowed.
 
State law says renters must grant access for showings during “normal business hours.” To find that weekends fit that wording, the court found that the “community” standards were those of the real estate community. The Metropolitan News-Enterprise explains that the appeals court said that “… since the relevant community is real estate agents, and it was undisputed that those agents work on weekends, the trial judge correctly concluded that weekend hours are not excluded from the statutory definition.

Not everyone will agree with that “normal business hours” decision, and a law professor from San Diego blogged about how much power it could give a less-than-perfect landlord. Shaun Martin wrote: “Imagine that you have a tenant you don’t like. She’s got rent control. She’s got kids. She requires you to actually do repairs. Whatever. She’s a huge pest. Here’s an easy solution for you: Put the place up for sale. Set the price at 20% or so above market.  If you get a sale, great. Huge profit. That almost certainly will not happen. But like you care. You hold open house after open house.  Two weekends a month.  Like here. If it takes a year, so be it. No skin off your back. Not like you’ve got to do anything. You’re not even there.”

Read details of the case in the Met-News here.

And see Prof. Martin’s blog here.

25 California Mayors Opposing Prop. 8 As U.S. Supreme Court Debates The Ban

 
The high-profile U.S. Supreme Court debate over California’s same-sex marriage ban is, of course, getting plenty of attention as oral arguments begin this week. Among those commenting are 25 California mayors who are urging the justices to find the measure unconstitutional, including the top executives from Sacramento, Los Angels and Oakland.
 
Oddly, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee was not among those signing a group statement that was being distributed by the liberal Courage Campaign. Maybe that’s because he’s a “given,” having ordered his city to fly a rainbow flag over City Hall through Wednesday. “As mayors,” say the mayors, “we have a responsibility to unite our cities, not divide them.”

Read more here.

California Firm Named In WSJ Asbestos Fraud Investigation

 
A small Northern California law office this week will test that old saying that “any publicity is good publicity.” In a front-page Wall Street Journal story, an apparently bogus claim leads into an extensive investigation. After noting lax review of trust funds, the WSJ reported… “so when a beneficiary of one David E. Knight came to the trust saying the former seaman had succumbed to the deadly cancer mesothelioma, the administrators didn’t blink. Within five weeks, the claimant received a check for $26,250. The only problem: There was no such Mr. Knight. Police say the claim was phony, filed by an employee of a law office specializing in extracting payouts from asbestos bankruptcy trusts. California prosecutors are investigating.”
 
The paper used the case as an example of lax overview. The legal center involved says it was an employee acting on their own. The employee has left the firm and did not comment for the story. But the story illustrates the mess that is asbestos litigation. (Los Angeles County was recently named a “judicial hellhole” for asbestos cases by a national business group.)
 
Connect some dots by reading the full WSJ story here.

Judge Elias says church must ID accused priests

 
An L.A. County Superior Court Judge has ruled that names will be named as the Archdiocese of Los Angeles releases records, expected to be in the 30,000 page range, that document how the church leadership handled sexual abuse claims against priests.
 
The records include formerly confidential personnel records that could include psychiatric files, parents’ letters of complaint and even Vatican correspondence. They are being released as part of a 2007 settlement between the archdiocese and more than 500 victims, 200 accused priests and abuse going back for decades. The settlement included $720 million for victims.
 
Superior Court Judge Emilie H. Elias said, in effect, that the public’s right to know how the church leadership handled molestation allegations outweighed other concerns. The judge reportedly asked a church lawyer: “Don’t you think the public has a right to know … what was going on in their own church?”
 
The L.A. Times was part of the request for making the names public and its story is here. 

Judge Koh order could impact California tech sector

November, 2012: A federal patent case has a federal judge making interesting decisions that could impact California’s tech sector.

In a 23-page order, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh seems to be restricting the issuance of injunctions in patent cases. The order follows a reported October decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversing her judgment in a related patent fight between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.

You can find other coverage, but don’t miss the insight at Law.com, where they cite an expert predicting a path to real changes.

[Read more…]

Landlord/rental questions abound in the Golden State

What’s up with your rental deposit? Can a landlord deny you a one-bedroom apartment because you have a kid? What’s up with really, really late rent?

Landlord/rental questions abound in the Golden State, and one place to get down to cases is an L.A. Times blog by Martin Eichner. Granted, as director of Housing Counseling Programs for a Bay Area nonprofit, he has a renter’s POV, he’s still a voice of clarity.

You know how it’s all “it depends” on legal-ish blogs? Not here. On that “with a kid” question, he says that, because federal standards “… allow any two people to share the one bedroom, the housing provider has engaged in discrimination by deciding that a mother and son do not have the same right.”

Check it out for yourself, click here. 

California budget cuts lead to talk of closing small claims court

“Access” stories are starting to bubble up as we see the real-world impacts from dramatic budget cuts to the California system, like counties having to decide if they want to keep handling adoptions and family issues or keep their small claims court open.

Nick Monacelli of Sacramento’s Channel 10 news has a (for TV) surprisingly in-depth look at what’s happening, including flat-out closing small claims. He even quotes a judge admitting that the justice system is breaking the law.

“In Sacramento County,” writes Monacelli on the station’s website, “194 positions have been cut. If the current budget remains, another 60 or 70 will go as well. The cuts are so bad they’re talking about shutting down small claims.”

Says a judge: “If we don’t stop doing small claims, then we have to stop doing adoptions, or personal protective orders, or we have to stop arraigning criminal defendants who are in custody.”

[Read more…]