eBriefs May 30, 2019

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2019


Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Constitutional Law

Montana Code Annotated §2-2-136(4) facially violates the First Amendment; although the protection of certain kinds of personal information about unelected public employees is a compelling interest, the confidentiality provision of §2-2-136(4) is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Commissioner of Political Practices did not act unreasonably in relying on the constitutionality of a duly enacted confidentiality statute to deny a request for disclosure.

Tschida v. Motl; filed May 29, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 18-35115


Contract Law

An agreement limiting venue for litigation to a particular county unambiguously prohibits litigation in federal court when there is no federal courthouse located in the designated county.

City of Albany v. CH2M Hill, Inc.; filed May 29, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 18-35283


Immigration Law

The Board of Immigration Appeals does not per se err when it concludes that arguments raised for the first time on appeal do not have to be entertained.

Honcharov v. Barr; filed May 29, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 15-71554


California Court of Appeal

Civil Procedure

A defendant’s written election not to proceed with the filing of a petition to compel arbitration was an explicit waiver of its right to arbitrate the plaintiff’s claims. The Court of Appeal decision in Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equipment does not reflect a change in the law on the arbitrability of alleged violations of a wage order.

Nunez v. Nevell Group, Inc.; Fourth District, Div. Three; filed May 2, 2019, publication ordered May 28, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2511


Consumer Protection

Uniform Commercial Code §3309 is inapplicable when the payee of an insurance check has authorized a third-party to act as his representative endorsing and depositing insurance checks because his loss of possession of the check was through a transfer.

Josefowicz v. Allstate Insurance Company; Fourth District, Div. Three; filed May 28, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2515


Criminal Law and Procedure

A trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution based upon the average cost per square foot to abate graffiti, as multiplied by the square footage of graffiti caused by a defendant.

People v. Hurtado; Fourth District, Div. One; filed May 29, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2518


Family Law

A criminal protective order does not bar the entry of a domestic violence restraining order.

Lugo v. Corona; Second District, Div. Four; filed May 28, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2523


Family Law

The provision of Family Code §1612(c) requiring a trial court to consider whether a premarital agreement was unconscionable at the time of enforcement does not apply to premarital agreements entered prior to Jan. 1, 2002; while circumstances existing at the time of the enforcement of a pre-2002 spousal support waiver might make enforcement unjust, no case addressing unjust enforcement of a spousal support waiver has rested on a finding of unconscionability based solely on circumstances existing at the time of enforcement. Once a trial court has terminated its jurisdiction over spousal support, it does not have authority to reinstate that jurisdiction based on a change in the parties’ circumstances.

In re Marriage of Miotke; Sixth District; filed May 28, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2525