by Andy Chen | Jan 13, 2017 | Law School Help, Statutes... and stuff
One of the things that makes the law unnecessarily confusing for non-lawyers (and lawyers too, let’s be honest) is specialized terminology. This isn’t unique to the law, of course. Many industries and specialties have their own terms and vernacular that makes perfect sense to those in the field, but leaves everyone else scratching their head. In a small, small, small, small, small effort to remedy that for the law, I’m going to explain in this blog post what the legal term “common carrier” means. This post will be specific to California, which means, as usual, that you have to look it up yourself for other states. The term common carrier appeared for me in law school in my torts class. If you happen to be encountering it in your law school torts class now and have no idea what it means, this post is for you. Regardless of whether your professors are explaining the concept, very few professors actually connect the concept to a specific authority in California like I am about to. In California, “Common Carrier” is defined in Civil Code section 2168 which states: “Every one who offers to the public to carry persons, property, or messages, excepting only telegraphic messages, is a common carrier of whatever he thus offers to carry.” Sections 2169 and onward of the Civil Code also provide other rules and requirements for common carriers. Court cases in California also help define the term Common Carrier. For example, “[A] common carrier within the meaning of Civil Code section 2168 is any entity which holds itself out to the public generally and indifferently to...
by Andy Chen | Jul 15, 2016 | Law, in real life, Statutes... and stuff
Driving around as I do, I can’t help but notice an increasing number of abandoned shopping carts lying around my neighborhood. My best guess is that people who don’t drive to stores are taking the shopping carts in order to avoid having to carry their heavy bags to their home, to the bus stop, etc. I find this interesting because California law makes removal of a shopping cart in this way from the premises of the store a misdemeanor. Specifically, it’s California Business and Professions Code sections 22435 and 22435.1 through 22435.8. There are two caveats to this. The first is that the prohibitions on shopping cart removal under Business and Professions Code sections 22435, et seq only apply if a sign like the one pictured above is affixed to the cart informing users of the laws against removal of said cart. (B&P section 22435.1). The second caveat is that, per B&P section 22435.2, you’re only guilty of a misdemeanor if you remove the cart “with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the owner or retailer of possession of the cart.” The result is that the mere fact you’ve removed the cart is not enough to make you guilty. You have to remove the cart with a specific intent to deprive the owner of possession, either temporarily or permanently. In other words, guilt comes from proving two elements (removal and intent) as opposed to just removal. Whether intent can or cannot be proven depends, like everything in the law it seems, on the circumstances of the case. In the meantime, I try to corral shopping carts I see in...
by Andy Chen | May 2, 2016 | California, Law, in real life, Statutes... and stuff
In this post, I’m going to discuss something that often arises in a California residential Landlord-Tenant case where the tenant has lost at trial — can the tenant get extra time to move? If you’re a tenant who has lost his eviction case, the general process from the landlord’s side is to (1) get the court to issue a writ of possession, (2) deliver said writ to the county sheriff’s civil division for service, and (3) the sheriff serves the writ. Steps (1) and (2) can take place within one or two business days of the eviction trial. If the landlord is particularly quick, it might be the same day as the trial. (3) usually is what most people recognize as the sheriff coming to the rental property and taping up a sign on the door saying that the tenant has 5 calendar days to move. The timing of step (3) can vary. In my experience, some sheriff civil divisions are not open every day. Others are open only part of a weekday. On top of that, each division may have set schedules for service (e.g. only serving Monday and Wednesdays). Check with the sheriff’s civil division in your case to find out for certain what their schedule is. Let’s assume that 5 calendar days elapses between the time the tenant loses at the eviction trial and the time the sheriff posts a notice on the tenant’s door to move out. The notice specifies another 5 days within which the tenant has to move. What happens if the tenant needs more than these 10 days? The answer is a Stay of Eviction...
by Andy Chen | Apr 25, 2016 | Law, in real life
In a change of pace from my last few posts about California residential Landlord-Tenant law, I’m going to talk about family law, specifically the question of how does one change their name back to their maiden name after a divorce. The “after a divorce” part is important. If you want to change your name generally (e.g. it’s hard to spell, hard to pronounce, etc.), you can, but the process is different. Changing your name after a divorce is, in my opinion, easier than just changing your name in general. There are two ways to do the “after a divorce” name change. The first is when you ask for the name change as part of the case itself. If you’re the one who filed the case, you’re the Petitioner and you can ask for your name to be changed as part of your petition (see box 11(b) on California Judicial Council form FL-100). If you’re not the party who filed, you’re the Respondent, but you can still ask for your name to be changed as part of your response (see box 11(b) on California Judicial Council form FL-120). If you’ve done either of these, the court can grant your name change back to your maiden name as part of the divorce decree or judgment. The divorce judgment is California Judicial Council form FL-180 and the name change is specifically in box 4(f). If you’ve done your name change as part of your case, what you need to d o to change your name with the California Department of Motor Vehicles, the Social Security Administration, etc is get a certified copy of your...
by Andy Chen | Apr 19, 2016 | California, Law, in real life, Statutes... and stuff
In this second post on California residential Landlord-Tenant law, I’m going to talk about the techniques some residential landlords go through to force tenants to move. To see my first post, click here. As I explained previously, there is no license or test to become a residential landlord. Many people just put an ad on Craigslist and things generally go fine… until a problem results. In general, for a landlord to get rid of a tenant, the landlord has to evict them through a court process called an Unlawful Detainer (UD) proceeding. A UD is not difficult and is, in many ways, a cookie-cutter or formulaic process. However, like any court process, it takes time and money that some landlords do not want to spend. One technique that sometimes occurs is the landlord resorts to brute force. For example: the landlord hires individuals to forcibly remove the tenant, the landlord changes the locks while the tenant is out and refuses to provide the new key, and/or the landlord turns off utilities in the hope that the tenant will simply move rather than live with no electricity or water. I would imagine a landlord could think these would be simple and cheap alternatives to a court proceeding, but unfortunately, tactics like these are all highly illegal. The California law in question is California Civil Code section 789.3(a) and 789.3(b). Civil code section 789.3(a) provides: A landlord shall not with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as his residence willfully cause, directly or indirectly,...
