998 loser still gets enforcement costs. Did you win your case but lose the CCP 998 bet? While your prejudgment costs are limited, you are still entitled to judgment enforcement costs. Elmi v. Related Management Company, L.P. (4D3d, Jan. 8, 2025, No. G062788).
A judge’s participation at a legal conference about a case is not a grounds to DQ. After awarding fees, the arbitrator spoke at a conference about the case. This was not a ground for disqualification. (Silva v. The Signature Motors LLC, Case No. H051552 (6th Dist. Jan. 14, 2025) (unpublished).) (Comment: This is right, but if I were the aggrieved party I’d be perturbed, too.)
Supreme Court opinion limiting punishment for facilitating drug overdose has been overruled, AG says. People v. Ollo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 682 had distinguished between providing and administering illegal drugs. But Prop 36 nullifies that distinction, according to the AG’s brief. (Comment: Given how promiscuously drugs can be classified illegal, this strikes me as chilling the medical and bodily autonomy.)
The Ghost of Buck v. Bell: In view of past government mistreatment, the immutable trait of race gets strict scrutiny. Sex gets intermediate. What about the mentally disabled, against whom the government not too long ago mandated sterilization (Buck v. Bell was never formally overruled, by the way)? Says the Court of Appeal: Mere rational basis. Plus ça change.
(Artwork by Randall Holbrook, RNDL.DESIGN.)