section 1021.5. The trial court granted the motion, but applied a “negative” multipli- er (actually a fractional multiplier) to reduce the lodestar fee award, based on the court’s determination that it would be “better” for less money to be paid to the prevailing parties in order to leave the Agency with more money to fund its ongo- ing operations. Reversed; the trial court should have applied the standard lodestar analysis, and could not rely on its subjec- tive determination of the best use of the Agency’s funds to reduce the fee award. Due Process, DMV License
Suspensions: Petrus v. Dep’t Motor Vehicles (2011) __ Cal.App.4th __ (Fourth Dist. Div. 1.)
Petrus was arrested in a restaurant
parking lot when an off-duty CHP officer observed him driving while intoxicated. He requested a blood test to determine his blood-alcohol level. The results were .18 percent. Petrus requested the results a month before the DMV hearing on his license suspension, but they were faxed to his attorney’s office only the morning of the hearing, and the attorney did not see them until moments before the hearing. His attorney objected to the introduction of the test results because they were pro- vided late, and requested a continuance for this reason, which was denied.
Petrus’s challenge to the suspension in the trial court was denied. Reversed. The requirement in the Government Code that test results be provided prior to the hearing if requested does not equate to discovery minutes before the hearing. Petrus was denied his due-process right to a full and fair opportunity to present a meaningful case. Evidence; foundation for expert
testimony: Bell v. Mason (2011) __ Cal.App.4th __ (2d Dist. Div. 3.) Bell recovered a $700,000 judgment
against Mason, as well as $204,000 in attorney’s fees. Bell claimed she sold her house to Mason, who “took advantage of [her] disabilities in gaining her trust and inducing her to enter into the transac- tion that deprived her of her home.” She claimed her disability was mental retarda- tion. At trial, Bell presented expert testi- mony from Scarf, a psychologist, that she had a 62 IQ and was mentally retarded. The defense psychiatrist, Black, was pre- vented by the trial court from offering an opinion on the issue of whether Bell was mentally retarded because he had not examined her personally, even though he had read all three volumes of her deposi- tion testimony and had viewed more than 15 hours of videotaped testimony. The trial court found that because Black had
not personally interviewed Bell, his opin- ion lacked foundation. Reversed. Black’s review of the deposition and evaluation of the videotape was an ample founda- tion. Excluding his testimony was prejudicial. Punitive damages; arbitration; judi-
cial review; due process: Shahinian v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2011) __ Cal.App.4th __ (2d Dist. Div. 8.) Plaintiff, a physician on the medical
staff at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, obtained an arbitration award arising out of the withdrawal of staff privileges. The arbitrator awarded $2.58 million in punitive damages, an amount 1.2 times the compensatory damages. Cedars- Sinai argued on appeal that the puni- tive-damages award was unconstitution- ally large, and that applying the ordi- nary rules that preclude judicial review of arbitration awards operated to deprive it of due process. Affirmed. The arbitrator was within her power to award punitive damages; the amount awarded was not excessive; and the rules of limited judicial review for arbitration awards applies to punitive-damages awards. Since no grounds to disturb the award appeared, given the limited nature of judicial review, it would be affirmed.
JUNE 2011 The Advocate Magazine — 83
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96