Labor Code Does Not Preempt L.A.'s Ordinance Re Hotel Service Workers, Plus Criminal & Family Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff on September 09, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

People v. Minor, C057609, concerned a challenge to an order granting a probation officer's request to extend by two years a three-year period of probation imposed following defendant's no contest plea to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.  In affirming, the court held that defendant's rights of procedural due process were not violated in any respect as he was provided adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the extension of his probation, and that there is adequate support in the record for the court's order extending probation.


People v. Ireland, F057896, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for four counts of forcible rape.  In affirming the convictions, the court held that substantial evidence supports each of the convictions of forcible rape as, from all of the evidence, it is clear that the victims did not continue to consent when defendant put the knife to their throats and defendant knew they did not continue to consent.  The court also held that, although the instruction on withdrawal of consent could have been confusing, it was harmless under any standard.

In re V.V., C063602, concerned a challenge to a juvenile court's orders terminating defendants' parental rights as to their two children.  In affirming, the court held that the mother received adequate notice.  The court held that, since the child was detained shortly after her birth and considered her foster parents to be her parents, the exception to adoption does not apply to either minor.  Also, lacking evidence of a substantial bond or that termination of parental rights would substantially interfere with whatever bond existed, it was not an abuse of discretion for the juvenile court to terminate parental rights.  Lastly, there was no violation of the father's right to discharge retained counsel.

Garcia v. Four Points Sheraton LAX, B210720, involved hotel service workers' class action lawsuit against certain hotels near Los Angeles International Airport, for violation of a city ordinance that requires hotels with 50 or more rooms to pass along service charges to those hotel workers who render the services for which the charges are collected, and for violation of the unfair competition law.  In reversing the trial court's dismissal following its order sustaining the demurrers to the complaints, the court held that the Labor Code does not preempt the ordinance.  The court held that the ordinance is not unconstitutional, as the classifications in the ordinance are rationally based and do not violate the equal protection clause.  Also, the ordinance does not violate due process and is not void for vagueness, and the ordinance is not an unconstitutional taking.

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard