Law Offices of Anju Multani

Thank you to everyone who attended, who danced, who sang-along, who complimented, who encouraged our efforts

R.D. and ASHA JI.....dance to the BEATS of the INCOMPARABLE DUO ..on December 19, 2020 starting at 5:00 p.m.

Rock it to the KARAVAAN of R.D. BURMAN's with Dhoom Macha Le on December 19, 2020 starting at 4:00 p.m.

Dhoom Macha Le brings the DHOOMAAKA of R.D. Burman on December 19, 2020 starting at 4:00 p.m.

California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson Docket: 19-15607 Opinion Date: September 3, 2020... Judge: Mary Murphy Schroeder Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law Individual parents of Hindu children in the California public schools and CAPEEM filed suit against the State Department of Education and State Board of Education, claiming discrimination against the Hindu religion in the content of the History-Social Science Standards and Framework for sixth and seventh graders. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the challenged content of the Standards and Framework, and process leading up to the Framework's adoption, did not disparage or otherwise express hostility to Hinduism in violation of the Constitution. The panel held that the district court properly dismissed the Equal Protection claims where the district court correctly characterized plaintiffs' claims as an indirect attack on curricula; Monteiro v. Tempe Union School District, 158 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 1998), bars plaintiffs' claims; and plaintiffs' dislike of challenged content does not constitute a violation of Equal Protection, absent a plausible allegation of discriminatory policy or intent. In regard to plaintiffs' claims under the Free Exercise clause, the panel held that the complaint did not allege interference with plaintiffs' exercise of their religion under the Constitution as required for a viable Free Exercise claim under Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017), and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2252 (2020). Furthermore, there are no expressions of hostility here as there was in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018). In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, the panel held that parents have the right to choose the educational forum, but not what takes place inside the school. The panel stated that parents do not have a due process right to interfere with the curriculum, discipline, hours of instruction, or the nature of any other curricular or extracurricular activities. Finally, in regard to the First Amendment Establishment clause claims, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider plaintiffs' expert report in its analysis; the Standards and Framework do not call for the teaching of biblical events or figures as historical fact, thereby implicitly endorsing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and none of plaintiffs' characterizations of the Hinduism materials as disparaging was supported by an objective reading of those materials.

The Domestic Violence Prevention Act and Family Code authorize a court to order the restrained party to move out of property and allow the protected party to use and possess the property. In this case, while ownership of the property will be determined in the pending civil suit, the trial court had authority to make orders about the use and possession of the property Nichole G. v Braithwaite...Second District Court of Appeals

I am posting new decisions coming through which are of general interest. If you wish to discuss any of these cases and information, do contact me.

Vehicle Code section 13365(a) directs the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to suspend a person’s driver’s license [u]pon receipt of notification of a violation of" section 40508(a) (the Misdemeanor Statute), which makes it a misdemeanor for a traffic offender to willfully violat[e] his written promise to appear in court. Plaintiffs challenged the DMV policy of suspending driver’s licenses upon notification of a failure to appear even without notification that this failur...e violated the Misdemeanor Statute. The DMV provides courts with electronic and paper methods to notify it of a person’s failure to appear; both require the court to indicate the sections violated. The DMV will suspend a driver’s license regardless of whether the form indicates that the Misdemeanor Statute is one of the sections violated. The trial court denied the petition. The court of appeal reversed, rejecting DMV’s argument that it is authorized under section 13365(a) to suspend a license upon receiving notification pursuant to the Notification Statutes. Notification of a violation of the Misdemeanor Statute is required before the DMV suspends a license pursuant to section 13365(a). The Notification Statute is broader and authorizes permissive notification upon violation of a written promise to appear . . . , or . . . an order to appear in court." An order to appear in court is not equivalent to a written promise to appear. The Misdemeanor Statute also requires that the failure to appear be willful.

A plaintiff can sue police in civil court for excessive force after he has been convicted in criminal court. In this case, plaintiff pleaded no contest to disturbing the peace after interacting with an officer at an airport parking lot. Plaintiff then filed a civil complaint for excessive force against the officer, the City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles World Police Department. The Court of Appeal held that the past conviction did not establish that the officer used only reasonable force and thus the first criminal conviction is consistent with the second civil case. Kon vs City of Los Angeles.....of interest now with recent events

Destruction and plunder is not the answer to inveigh against brutality.

South Bay Pentecostal Church v Newsom.....The Ninth Circuit issued an order denying appellants' emergency motion seeking injunction relief permitting them to hold in-person religious services during the pendency of this appeal. The panel held that appellants have not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal. The panel explained that, where state action does not infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation and does not in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief, it does not violate the First Amendment. In this case, the panel stated that we are dealing with a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure. The Church had sued the Governor for not allowing church meetings. The Court denied the Church's motion

COVID-19 AND CONTRACTS Ability to RESCIND (CANCEL) contracts due to COVID-19 Events Capable of Constituting Force Majeure... The test for force majeure usually requires the satisfaction of three distinct criteria: the event must be beyond the reasonable control of the affected party; the affected party’s ability to perform its obligations under the contract must have been prevented, impeded or hindered by the event; and the affected party must have taken all reasonable steps to seek to avoid or mitigate the event or its consequences. Please contact LAW OFFICE OF ANJU MULTANI if you have any questions/concerns over this issue. This post does not create an attorney client relationship and is a general statement, not directed to any individual case or situation

The review found that 89% of facilities with the coronavirus had previous infection control violations, including mishandling patients with highly contagious ba...cterial infections, and not properly cleaning ventilators and other equipment. Not good to hear. Contact LAW OFFICE OF ANJU MULTANI at [email protected]

Law Office of Anju Multani is committed to safety and health of everyone. To ensure no disruption in services and accessibility video conferencing and communications are available. Email me at [email protected] to arrange for such conferences, discussions and advice.