California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 209 affirmative action ban

Tackling Proposition 209 for the first time in a decade, the California Supreme Court on Monday left intact the state's ban on affirmative action in public programs.

In a 6-1 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the 1996 voter-approved law, in the process invalidating a 7-year-old San Francisco ordinance designed to aid minority- and women-owned businesses in the contracting process. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, reinforced past state and federal court rulings that have kept Proposition 209's tight limits on public affirmative action programs in place across California.

The justices left open the possibility that San Francisco officials could still salvage the law in the trial court if they can prove it is the only possible way to fix entrenched discrimination in the city's contracting programs, but overall rejected San Francisco's argument that Proposition 209 is unconstitutional, the first time the state's high court has addressed that question directly. Justice Carlos Moreno dissented, concluding that laws such as San Francisco's should be permissible to correct discrimination, given the political difficulty of overturning or curtailing Proposition 209 at the ballot box.

Read More >>

Six RAS Doctors File Lawsuit Against Sutter

Doctors with Radiological Associates of Sacramento Medical Group Inc. have been denied privileges at local Sutter hospitals even though other independent doctors continue to perform similar procedures there, lawsuits filed Wednesday allege.

Twin lawsuits filed in Sacramento and Placer county superior courts allege action taken by Sutter Roseville Medical Center and Sutter Medical Center Sacramento is discriminatory and interferes with medical staff privileges detailed in hospital bylaws.

Complaints filed on behalf of six interventional radiologists at RAS are continued fallout from a Sutter decision to terminate its long-standing contract with the largest radiology group in the region March 31.

Sutter has instead hired radiologists to work under the umbrella of its own medical foundation. The lawsuits allege breach of contract and ask the court to order Sutter to restore staff privileges for the doctors.

The first court hearing is scheduled Tuesday.

Read More >>

Supreme Court Gun Ruling Likely to Echo in California

California can expect a barrage of legal challenges to its many strict gun-control regulations as a result of Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that applies the constitutional right to bear arms to local and state governments.

From California's long-standing and controversial assault weapons ban to local limits on the sale and possession of certain types of handguns, the Supreme Court's unprecedented extension of the Second Amendment to cities and states will play out in courtrooms from San Diego to San Francisco.

Perhaps the first major test may involve Alameda County, where a legal challenge to an ordinance banning gun sales on county property has been on hold in a federal appeals court while the Supreme Court considered the Second Amendment issue.

For the most part, legal experts predict that the majority of California's gun laws will survive because of the Supreme Court's clear message that the right to bear arms does not bar reasonable government regulation. But they likewise predict years of litigation before the courts sort out which laws hold up against that strong constitutional right.

Read More >>

Apple and AT&T Targeted in at Least Three Class-Action Suits

At least three class-action lawsuits have been filed in the states of California, Maryland and Texas over alleged problems with iPhone 4 reception when the device is held in the hand a certain manner.

The complaint filed in Oakland, CA is the largest with 11 plaintiffs, while the other two each have one. Apple is being targeted for "three counts of products liability related to negligence, defects in design and break of implied warranty, international and negligent misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, unfair business practices, and more," according to a report from AppleInsider.

Furthermore, complaint out of California goes on to state that, "The iPhone 4 manifests design and manufacturing defects that were known to Defendants before it was released which were not displaced to consumers, namely, a connection problem caused by the iPhone 4's antenna configuration that makes it difficult or impossible to maintain a connection to AT&T's network."

AT&T is also mentioned in the suit, because it states that they helped Apple "design, manufacture and market" the iPhone 4.

Read More >>