Articles

Subscribe to Articles via RSS

By Leslie Z. Walker

The First Amendment Free Speech clause states, “Congress . . . shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” The political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military and scandals involving the Catholic clergy, are matters of public import meriting the protection of the Free Speech Clause. In Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. ____ 131 S. Ct. 1207, the Supreme Court found that members of Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq were entitled to special protection under the First Amendment because the picketing was done at a public place on a matter of public concern.Continue Reading If You Don’t Like What You See, Don’t Look

By Katherine J. Hart

In Bollay, et al. v. California Office of Administrative Law, et al. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 103 the Court of Appeal Third Appellate District (Court), considered whether a State Lands Commission (Commission) policy prohibiting development seaward of the most landward historical position of the mean high tide line was an invalid underground regulation because it was not promulgated as a regulation pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
Continue Reading Exemption to APAs Promolgation Rule was Inapplicable

By William W. Abbott

The "Faith" Fellowship Foursquare Church (“Church”) is a church active in the City of San Leandro, but as its membership grew with the passage of time, the Church outgrew its existing facilities. Starting in 2006, the Church began searching for a new location and eventually settled on property on Catalina Street, located in an industrial park. The park was located in an area designated by the City’s general plan for industrial technological activity. In March 2006, the Church entered into a purchase agreement for the Catalina property.Continue Reading General Plan Goal of Creating Employment Opportunities Insufficient Basis to Thwart Church Rezoning Request

By Cori Badgley and Emilio Camacho

In Monterey/Santa Cruz County Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Cypress Marina Heights LP (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1500, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, held that deeds acquiring property from a redevelopment agency required the purchaser/developer to pay prevailing wages to the construction workers. In addition, the appellate court also held that plaintiffs were entitled to $73,167.50 in attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.Continue Reading Bad Deeds Make Bad Law

In Alameda Books et al. v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011, No. No. 09-55367 __ F.3d ____ [2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1769] the Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs claiming an ordinance requiring the dispersal of adult entertainment businesses violated the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit found that the biased declarations upon which the summary judgment was based did not amount to actual and convincing evidence sufficient to cast doubt on the rationale of the City of Los Angeles in creating the ordinance.
Continue Reading Government Rationale Given Benefit of the Doubt in First Amendment Challenge to Zoning Ordinance

By Glen C. Hansen

In 2008, the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 2923.5. That statute requires, before a notice of default may be filed, that a lender contact the borrower in person or by telephone to “assess” the borrower’s financial situation and to “explore” options for the borrower to prevent foreclosure.  In Mabry v. Superior Court (June 2, 2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District addressed a case where plaintiff borrowers brought an action that requested a restraining order to prevent a foreclosure sale based on the lender’s alleged failure to comply with section 2923.5. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ request on the grounds of no private right of enforcement and federal preemption. The Court of Appeal reversed, and disagreeing with the trial court on both grounds.Continue Reading Borrowers May Sue to Postpone a Foreclosure if the Lender Does Not First Discuss Options with the Borrower to Prevent Foreclosure