This is the inaugural edition of Headnotes—cases I did not have time to write up, but seemed either important or irritating enough to mention anyway:
- Arb Fees. Keeton v. Tesla, Inc. (D1d1 Jun. 26, 2024 No. A166690) (published), held the Cal. Arb. Act 30-day pay-arb-fees-or-forfeit provision CCP 1281.98 is not preempted by the FAA, making a clear split on the issue. See in Hernandez v. Sohnen Enters. (D2d5 May 22, 2024 No. B323303) [cert. for pub.], writeup here. Supreme Court granted review of the issue in *Hohenshelt v. Superior Court.* (Prediction: Hernandez is right, but Supreme Court will side with Keeton.)
- Anti-Tax Initiative Killed as a “Revision.” In Legislature v. Weber (Jun. 20, 2024 No. S281977), the Cal. Supreme Court held that a far-reaching voter-initiative ban on taxes without voter approval was a structural change—and thus not an “amendment” but a “revision” that must be initiated by the legislature. It’s now struck from the ballot. (Hot Take: After looking at examples of what has counted as an “amendment” and what strays into “revision” territory, all the ones that have been upheld as amendments seem much narrower than this initiative that calls for all tax increases to be subject to voter approval.)
- HOA Can’t Nix Religious Celebration. In Morris v. W. Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Ass'n, No. 19-35390 (9th Cir. June 17, 2024), a divided panel producing three opinions was led by Judge Berzon. The majority reversed JNOV and reinstated the jury verdict finding the HOA opposing a Christmas program was motivated in part by the owners’ religious expression. Dissenting, Judge Tashima thought the HOA was just worried about the scale of the program. Concurring and dissenting, Judge Nelson would have dealt even more harshly with the HOA. (Non-Legal Observation: Fences make good neighbors, but lawsuits don’t.)
- Restraining order for being "seriously annoying" but not for being regular annoying. In Saenz v. Martinez (D4d2 Jul. 1, 2024 No. E081471) [nonpub. opn.], an attorney sought a restraining order against opposing counsel. Court agreed he was “annoying” but you can only get a restraining order for being “seriously annoying.” (Comment: The bar for restraining orders is low, but at least there are some limits.)