August 30, 2012
The court on October 2 will hear the following cases (with the issues presented as stated on the court’s website):
DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara: Did plaintiff substantially comply with the statutory requirement that her claim against the county for medical negligence be presented “to the clerk, secretary or auditor thereof” or mailed to “the governing body” (Gov. Code, section 915, subd. (a)) by delivering the claim to the risk management department of the county hospital where the injury allegedly occurred?
Jankey v. Lee: Is an award of fees to a prevailing defendant under the California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, section 54 et seq.) inconsistent with, and therefore preempted by, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. section 12101 et seq.)? [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy represents defendant Lee in this case.]
Estate of Giraldin: When the settlor of a revocable inter vivos trust appoints, during his lifetime, someone other than himself to act as trustee, once the settlor dies and the trust becomes irrevocable, do the remainder beneficiaries have standing to sue the trustee for breaches of fiduciary duty committed during the period of revocability?
People v. Rodriguez: May an active participant in a criminal street gang be found guilty of violating Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a), when, acting entirely alone, he commits a felony, and there is no other evidence indicating the crime had anything to do with the gang?
People v. Sanders: (1) Is possession of a firearm after conviction of a specified violent offense (Pen. Code, section 12021.1, subd. (a)) a necessarily included offense of possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony (Pen. Code, section 12021, subd. (a)(1))? (2) Was defendant properly sentenced to concurrent terms for his simultaneous possession of two firearms in violation of Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1)?
In re Cabrera: Did the Court of Appeal improperly interpret title 15, section 3378, subdivisions (c)(3) and (c)(4), of the California Code of Regulations to require evidence of a “mutual relationship” between the inmate and a validated gang member or associate in order to validate the inmate’s own gang status?