Challengers claiming Los Angeles City Council District 10 was racially gerrymandered have asked SCOTUS to step in. On the show are petitioners' counsel Rex Heinke (Akin Gump), and two attorneys opposing review on behalf of Los Angeles, Robin Johansen (Remcho Johansen & Purcell), and Harit Trivedi (LA City Attorney's Office)

Claim 1 hour of CLE for listening ($): https://www.dailyjournal.com/mcle/454-the-drawn-out-battle-over-la-s-city-council-maps

138: The Drawn Out Battle over LA's City Council Maps

Business-owner plaintiffs suffering 'purely economic losses' from the 2015 SoCalGas leak were barred Thursday from recovering their claimed damages. The California Supreme Court, with palpable reluctance, endorsed a strict rule generally denying tort recovery to plaintiffs whose money damages aren't tied to personal injury or property harms. Amicus supporting SoCalGas, Yen-Shyang Tseng (Horvitz & Levy), and the plaintiffs' attorney Leslie Brueckner (Public Justice) offer competing views

139: Cal High Court Endorses 'Least-Worst Rule'

Several state law enforcement agencies would like to inform prosecutors if officers have misconduct on their records, so prosecutors can seek and give to defendants any potential exculpatory evidence, as required by 'Brady v. Maryland.' But California's 'Pitchess' laws say officer personnel files can only be opened in response to court orders. This week's guests offered arguments Wednesday before the state high court on how to resolve this seeming puzzle. Geoffrey Sheldon (Liebert Cassidy Whitmore) argued on behalf of the information-sharing policy; Judy Posner (Benedon & Serlin) and  Elizabeth Gibbons (The Gibbons Firm) represented a union of sheriff's deputies, and argued against it.

140: Brady v. Pitchess

After hearing argument the California Supreme Court  has ordered additional briefing in a case that could reshape the contours of the state's Private Attorneys General Act. Attorneys involved in the case, Michael Rubin (Altshuler Berzon) and Robert Olson (Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland) offer competing viewpoints.

141: What's makes a PAGA Penalty?

A battery of amicus briefs say SCOTUS should overturn a 20-year California rule setting minimum arbitration standards; will the FAA-friendly high court agree? 
Karla Gilbride (Public Justice), attorney for the plaintiff/respondent, and Fred Hiestand (CJAC), a defense-supporting amicus, offer competing views

142: A Call to 'Armendariz'

The 9th Circuit is mulling whether a JAMS arbitrator should have disclosed his part-ownership of the company, and whether such an arrangement creates a problematic incentive as to repeat parties. JAMS' Chief Legal and Operating Office Kimberly Taylor, and Prof. Katherine Stone (UCLA Law) offer competing views

Podcast

143: JAMS Session

Just-signed SB 27 seeks income tax disclosures from next spring's presidential primary candidates. Will it stand?

Attorneys pressing challenges in state and federal court - Tom Hiltachk (Bell, McAndrew & Hiltachk) and Mark Anchor Albert (Mark Anchor Albert & Associates) - say the law is partisan and violates both the state and federal constitutions. State Senator Scott Wiener (11th Dist) argues the measure falls within California's administrative authority to conduct its elections.

145: Tax Transparency or Trump Targeting?

Six guests offering competing views on three cases from OT 2019's immigration and border issue docket.

Mark Rosenbaum (Public Counsel) and Josh Blackman (South Texas College of Law) discuss the consolidated DACA appeals set for argument in November.

Regarding Kansas v. Garcia, in which Kansas' high court said a state statute used against unauthorized immigrants seeking employment with fraudulent social security numbers was preempted by federal law, we're joined by Lew Olowski (Immigration Reform Law Institute) and Kevin Johnson (Dean, UC Davis SOL).

And Professor Gregory Sisk (Univ. St. Thomas SOL) and Larry Joseph (APA Watch) offer competing takes on whether the family of a Mexican teenager killed by a federal agent's lethal cross-border shot have a constitutional 'Bivens' claim.

SCOTUS Preview 1: Immigration and Border Issues

Does the Constitution mandate an insanity defense? Or a unanimous jury in criminal cases? And where does the evolving juvenile jurisprudence stand on life-without-parole sentences? Six attorneys - five amici and one counsel who argued before the Court - offer competing views.

Guests include: Rachel Van Cleave (Golden Gate Univ.), Bradley Hubbard (Gibson Dunn), Elizabeth Murrill (Louisiana Solicitor General), Michael Saks (Sandra Day O'Connor COL), John R. Mills (Phillips Black), and Thomas Fisher (Indiana Solicitor General)

SCOTUS Preview 3 - Criminal Law

Brief Conversations is a podcast by the Daily Journal that features insightful interviews with legal experts on pertinent and trending legal issues.

140: Brady v. Pitchess

Brief Conversations

Related tracks