Due Process Matters
I'm happy to say that the California Court of Appeal reversed and vacated a gang injunction in the Broderick Boys case. Shocking as it is, it turns out that you cannot serve one member of a group with notice of a hearing on a preliminary injunction, get a default judgment and permanent injunction, and then magically be able to serve almost every member of the group with the permanent injunction. Thanks from a grateful citizen on this one to the ACLU and our very awesome faculty graduation speaker.
Funny quotes from the case smacking down the DA:
"Cases are not authority for points not considered."
"Although three of the appellants filed their addresses with the authorities, the district attorney did not serve them, or other alleged gang members with similarly-filed addresses. . . . Looking up some addresses is not too much to expect. "
"Third, the district attorney could have obtained approval to publish notice in the press. Instead, he waited until the permanent injunction was a fait accompli to publicize it. "
"Contrary to implications from the district attorney’s briefing and argument, appellants did not need to show that they had a good defense once they showed that the judgment was void
for lack of service."
Don't get me wrong. The Broderick Boys may well deserve a biting injunction to save a Sacramento neighborhood. But that's a question for a court to decide on the basis of evidence, with parties present. I'll close with my title: Due Process Matters.
Funny quotes from the case smacking down the DA:
"Cases are not authority for points not considered."
"Although three of the appellants filed their addresses with the authorities, the district attorney did not serve them, or other alleged gang members with similarly-filed addresses. . . . Looking up some addresses is not too much to expect. "
"Third, the district attorney could have obtained approval to publish notice in the press. Instead, he waited until the permanent injunction was a fait accompli to publicize it. "
"Contrary to implications from the district attorney’s briefing and argument, appellants did not need to show that they had a good defense once they showed that the judgment was void
for lack of service."
Don't get me wrong. The Broderick Boys may well deserve a biting injunction to save a Sacramento neighborhood. But that's a question for a court to decide on the basis of evidence, with parties present. I'll close with my title: Due Process Matters.
posted by Tom Fletcher at 12:07 PM
4 Comments:
Very cool case, thanks for sharing. However, the Court's pointing out that the gang "is not registered as a California corporation, limited liability company or partnership, and it has no address" leaves me wondering if they're a 501(c)(3) nonprofit?
501(c)(3) nonprofits are nonprofit CORPORATIONS. I think that may leave us with "unincorporated entity."
I'll remember to refrain from making jokes that involve subject matter covered by courses I haven't yet taken.
You don't learn that shit in class! The only thing I learned in corporations class was something about how to calculate how many votes you need to take over a company under different types of voting.
Post a Comment
<< Home