Domestic partner law changes in California

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- A California law granting domestic partners nearly identical legal rights as married couples does not conflict with a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, a state appeals court ruled.

California's domestic partner law represents the nation's most sweeping recognition of domestic partner rights short of Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legalized, and Vermont, which recognizes civil unions for gay couples. It grants registered couples virtually every spousal right under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal said Monday that the law did not undermine Proposition 22, the 2000 initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. That measure was "intended only to limit the status of marriage to heterosexual couples and to prevent the recognition in California of homosexual marriages," the three-judge panel said.

The ruling upheld a trial judge's decision in favor of the domestic partner law, which was signed by former Gov. Gray Davis. There are now about 29,000 couples registered as domestic partners, according to the secretary of state's office.

CNN

California law and ID theft

California residents have the ultimate weapon against identity theft — but few know it.

That may be changing, however, as a rash of security breaches putting personal information at risk has heightened public concern about privacy.

The weapon is a little-known California law — the only one of its kind in effect — allowing residents to freeze access to their credit reports. Such a step effectively prevents identity thieves from opening unauthorized credit accounts in the names of their victims.

Inquiries about the law, which took effect in 2003, have risen dramatically in the last few months, state officials said. And it has generated attention across the country as well: This year, 22 states considered legislation that allows consumers to freeze their credit reports.

"It's like the rise in sales in paper shredders," said state Sen. Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey), who sponsored the original California bill. Once privacy concerns rise to a certain point, "suddenly, everyone has to have one."

A credit-report freeze costs $30 — $10 each to the three major national credit bureaus — and involves a certain amount of paperwork. But consumers planning to seek credit can, with a few days' notice and another $30, suspend the freeze whenever they wish.


Three other states have passed similar laws. A Louisiana law that is set to take effect July 1 will allow residents there to freeze access to their credit reports. In Texas and Vermont, freezes are available only to people who have been victimized by identity theft.

That was the original notion behind the California bill.

"It was to stop the victimization of people who had spent months getting their credit cleaned up after an identity theft attack," Bowen said, "only to have it happen again."

Non-victims were added to the bill, Bowen said, for special cases, such as when people want to freeze their elderly parents' credit reports to protect them from investment scams.

latimes

Elton John to wed

Elton John's publicist tells the BBC (cited here via the Atlanta Journal Constitution) that the singer intends to marry his long-time partner sometime next year in Great Britain.
New laws recognizing gay civil partnerships take effect in Britain on Dec. 5. According to the article:

"The law, which is only applicable to homosexuals and not as an alternative to heterosexual marriage, grants lesbian and gay couples the same tax, pension, and inheritance status as married couples."

Gay marriages. Hmm. It will never happen in Malaysia for another 100 years. Via lazycat

California law and Micheal Jackson

SANTA MARIA, Calif.— A recent parade of witnesses who dredged up Michael Jackson's history with boys put the spotlight on a California law that allows prosecutors to bolster sex-crime cases with lurid stories from a defendant's past.

Upending decades of common law, the California Legislature agreed in 1995 that sex crimes against minors — which often pit the word of a child against that of an adult — were so hard to prove that admitting evidence of a defendant's past helped to even the playing field.




via latimes

California Law Revision Commission appoints 4 new lawyers

Four attorneys, three of them from Los Angeles, were named to the California Law Revision Commission yesterday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The three local appointees are Sidney Greathouse, Pamea Hemminger, and David Huebner. The fourth designee is Susan Lee.

The appointments require Senate confirmation, although the designated members may begin service immediately. Commission members do not receive a salary, but are paid $100 per day for attending meetings.

Greathouse has served since 2000 as director of legal services for The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, having previously practiced employment law at Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman from 1999 to 2000 and at Gartner & Young from 1997 to 1999.

Hemminger has been a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP since 1985 and specializes in labor and employment law. She is a past chair of the Labor and Employment Law section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and a fellow in the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers.

She is included in current and past editions of “The Best Lawyers In America,” “Chambers USA America’s Leading Business Lawyers,” and Euromoney’s “Guide to the World’s Leading Labour and Employment Lawyers.

Huebner is chairman and chief executive officer of Coudert Brothers, a post he has held since 2003. He has been a partner of the firm for the past 10 years, and his areas of expertise include international and domestic arbitration, civil litigation and intellectual property.

He is a graduate of Yale Law School and Princeton University, and serves as an adjunct professor at the USC School of Law.
Lee has served as a deputy attorney general since 1989 and currently drafts opinions for Attorney General Bill Lockyer. She previously was lead attorney in the San Francisco office, supervising the establishment of a statewide correctional habeas team.

Via metnews

California Jury Selection Law Discriminates Against Minorities

Apr 20 - The US Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over whether a California jury selection law discriminates against minority defendants.

The case involves Jay Shawn Johnson, a black man who was convicted in 1998 of killing his girlfriend's 18-month-old child.

Johnson's attorneys argued that the conviction was invalid because prosecutors used "peremptory challenges" to exclude the only three black potential jurors from the case. Under California law, such challenges by either side do not need to be explained except when the judge believes there is a "strong likelihood" of racial bias.

Johnson's supporters claim that California's law sets the standard too high and violates a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that prohibits attorneys from using race, religion, or gender as the reason for peremptory challenges.

Recent Chapter 13 Procedure For Plan Confirmation By Texas Bankruptcy Courts

In re LeBlanc, Case Number 03-50477-RLJ-13 in the Texas Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District, Lubbock Division, decided May 11, 2004. FACTS: Husband and wife proposed a 44 month plan of reorganization under Chapter 13 of the Code. This plan proposed an estimated payout of 36.39% of debts owed to unsecured creditors. The monthly income earned by husband and wife was undisputed in the amount of $6,588.76. Based on claimed monthly living expenses in the amount of $4,753.93, the proposed plan payment was $1,820 per month. Stated similarly, the proposed plan payment represented 27.6% of net monthly income. Thereafter, the trustee appointed by the Texas Bankruptcy Court objected to confirmation on the grounds that the plan "fails to dedicate all the LeBlanc's projected disposable income for the forty-four month plan term." Further, the trustee contended that living expenses submitted were excessive for a family of four, and in particular, objected to monthly food expense in the amount of $800 per month, clothing of $150, and the life insurance premium payment for $220 for the benefit of a disabled child. HELD: The Texas Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District, Lubbock Division ruled in favor of the trustee's objection to confirmation. If the trustee or an unsecured creditor objects to conformation of the plan, the plan must dedicate all of the debtor's projected disposable income for the three year plan period. 11 USC 1325(b)(1)(B). The Texas Bankruptcy Court did not accept the debtor's previous month's receipts for food expenditures, because the receipts constituted only "some evidence the debtors purchase food" but did not prove the necessity of purchases.

Texas Bankruptcy Law Tips For Individual Debtors & Consumers

Texas bankruptcy laws are poised to change in reaction to increasing financial strain experienced by state residents. On August 18, 2003, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts issued a press release declaring "Bankruptcy cases continue to break federal court caseload records - total bankruptcy filings and non-business filings hit highs." The filing rate for Texas bankruptcy cases during 2003 increased 10.4% in the Northern District (Dallas) and Southern District (Houston) over 2002. Filings in the Western District (San Antonio, Austin and El Paso) increased 9.3%. Filings in the Eastern District (Tyler) increased 7.2%. Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 accounted for 98.6% of Texas bankruptcy cases filed in 2003. Statewide, only Chapter 11 case filings decreased, accounting for 1.3% of total volume of all Texas bankruptcy cases.

Current Texas bankruptcy laws allow for the full & final discharge of debts in Chapter 7. Chapter 13 combines past due amounts into one monthly payment, at reduced interest, for up to five years. Additionally, partial payments are available which discharge remaining balances at the end of the plan term. The maximum payment in Chapter 13 is determined based on net income after paying living expenses. In ether chapter, all Texas bankruptcy cases are subject to court review. Also be aware that Texas bankruptcy courts may set a hearing if an objection is filed by a trustee, creditor, party in interest, or upon their motion. After all objections are resolved to the satisfaction of the court, discharge of debts or confirmation of the plan is mandatory. Conversely, if objections are not resolved, cases are usually dismissed. Most often, the success of each case is determined by careful planning before selecting chapter, options and filing date.

Lemon Law

Lemon law offers car buyers relief for defects detected during a specified period after the purchase of a vehicle. Though lemon laws vary from state to state, for the most part they follow the same structure.

Under the Lemon law, manufacturers or sellers are obliged to repair, replace, or refund the price of motor vehicles that prove to be defective. More specifically, lemon law grants the purchaser of a car specific remedies (e.g. a refund) if the car has a defect that impairs or significantly affects its use, value, or safety and cannot be repaired within a specified period.

Public data in lawsuits

March 2005
California personal injury lawyers would like the ability to determine what becomes public in a lawsuit by being able to overturn a judge’s authority to make this decision. According to personal injury lawyers, the personal and business documents collected in a lawsuit should be able to be used at trial because it conceals health and safety information.

Others disagree saying the information open to scrutiny by the press and public will allow more lawsuits to be developed. The information, according to personal injury lawyers, is important because it affects the public on sometimes very large scales – such as with the 2000 Firestone tire debacle that left more than 200 people killed, hundreds injured and 6.5 million tires recalled.