The Law Office of Asit Panwala continues to fight for the voters of Morgan Hill who were deprived of their right to vote in a referendum.  More than 2,500 registered voters signed a petition calling on the City to either repeal a zoning ordinance that would provide a huge financial windfall to a out-of-town hotel developer or place it on the ballot for voter approval.  The City working closely with River Park Hospitality refused to follow the California Constitution and place it on the ballot for voter approval.

The trial court found for the City, but Panwala successfully persuade the  Sixth District Court of Appeal to reverse the trial court in City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey, etc., et al., (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 34.  The case will now be heard by the California Supreme Court.

Asit Panwala of the Law Office of Asit Panwala and J. Randall Toch from the Toch Law Firm represent the Hotel Coalition and the voters in this matter.  Their brief was submitted to the Supreme Court last Thursday.

The Law Office of Asit Panwala successfully sued the Superior Court of Santa Clara County for a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The Superior Court has agreed to take measures so that it does not happen again in addition to paying monetary damages.

In March of 2016, the Superior Court denied a request for CART (Computer-Aided Real Time Transcription) services to a litigant who is hard-of-hearing.  His hearing aids do not help in a courtroom setting.  CART services allows one to read what is being said, just like captioning on TV. Instead, the client came to court and could not understand the arguments being made in his case or the questions from the Court. The Superior Court denied the accommodation because it was made three days in advance instead of five as required by a rule of court.  The Court denied the request minutes after receiving it, without making any real effort to find a CART provider.

In discovery, the Law Office of Asit Panwala learned that eleven other persons were denied CART services including five based on the timeliness of the request.

As a result of the public settlement, the Superior Court has promised to maintain a list of independent CART providers, undergo sensitivity training, highlight on their website that they will try to accommodate requests made less than five days before the hearing as well as pay a significant amount in damages.  See Panwala v. Santa Clara County Superior Court, case no. 5:16-cv-5914.

Asit Panwala hopes this resolution will remind the Courts that they have an obligation to be accessible to the public including those with disabilities.  He hopes that they will “just follow the law.“

The Times covered our recent Court of Appeal ruling that will allow voters to vote on the referendum measure.

http://www.morganhilltimes.com/news/hotels-win-rezoning-challenge-on-appeal/article_445e9ec0-46f1-11e7-a284-ab6a9f43dec6.html

Yesterday, the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued an unanimous decision affirming the right of voters to exercise the power of referendum.  Asit Panwala, attorney for the Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition argued that the Court of Appeal needed to reverse the trial court’s decision preventing voters from rejecting one zoning designation when several others would equally conform to an amended general plan.  Morgan Hill’s choose of zoning would have provided a financial windfall of two million dollars to out-of-town hotel developer.  The City argued that the voters could not reject their choice of zoning.

The City had relied on DeBottari v. City of Norco, a Fourth Appellate Division case, to argue that the voters could not choose leave in place an inconsistent zoning because it is the same as “enacting” invalid zoning.  Panwala argued that the logic of DeBottari was flawed and the Court of Appeal agreed. The City of Morgan Hill will now be ordered to repeal the zoning ordinance or place it on the ballot for voter approval.  Panwala is ecstatic that the voters will ultimately have the final word as the Constitution requires.

The decision is attached.  H043426

I received the phone message on my birthday.  Those who know me, know it is a national, rotating holiday for myself but the man sounded frantic and desperate for help.  That is how I first met Adesola.  I returned his call on my birthday while away on vacation.

Adesola is the father of a young boy, who provides for him by working for Instacart.  He had a tumultuous relationship with his child’s mother.  When the mother became exasperated with his son, Adesola took his son to Baltimore to live with his own mother.  The problem is that he did not have legal custody. The police soon arrested him for child abduction, and Adesola pled guilty to a felony with probation to get out of jail.

While on probation, his child’s mother would manipulate him.  If he did not do what she wanted, he would deny him to access to his child.  She demanded money and for Adesola to do errands.  One day, she went to the police station and complained that Adesola had threatened to hurt her via phone and harassed her by calling her 200 times.  Her call log showed three missed calls. Nevertheless, the probation department filed a motion to revoke Adesola’s probation.

I had learned that the mother of Adesola’s son had been arrested for DV and convicted of theft. I was ready for cross-examination and subpoenaed records to use at the hearing. Adesola was nervous, but when it came time for the hearing, the probation department folded.  They withdrew their motion to revoke before we even held a hearing, which is unheard of.  Meanwhile, Adesola now has joint custody. Adesola thanked me profusely for answering his phone call.

A writ of supersedeas is a request to the Court of Appeal to intervene and issue a stay to prevent the disastrous consequences of a trial court order.  They are rarely successful. However, the Law Office of Asit Panwala obtained a permanent stay, preventing Ordinance No. 2131 (a controversial zoning law) from going into effect while the appeal is litigated.

On April 1, 2015, the Morgan Hill City Council voted 3 to 2 to change the zoning of a parcel of land to help an out-of-town developer to build a hotel.  Although there is plenty of commercial land available, the developer bought industrial land meant to bring careers to Morgan Hill with the hope that he could receive an easy windfall with the conversion.

More than 2,500 voters said no by signing a petition for referendum, preventing the ordinance from becoming law. It could only become law only if the voters approved at a ballot measure.

The City Council then tried to ignore the petition. After the Hotel Coalition sued the City, the City agreed to place the measure on the ballot, but then sued to remove it.  The City won at the trial court level, but Law Office of Asit Panwala persisted and filed a writ. This week, the Sixth District Appellate Division issued a permanent stay. We hope that at the end of the day the Court will agree that voters should have the final say.

On March 29, 2016, the trial court in Santa Clara Superior Court sided with the City of Morgan Hill and the out-of-town developer in ordering Measure D to be removed from the ballot.  When I came home that day, my father asked me how is it possible that all those signatures (2,500 registered voters) is meaningless.  I didn’t have a good answer, and felt that democracy has been sacrificed for an out-of-town developer who only cares about short-term profit.

Shortly after my daughter was born (three days later), my wife urged me to appeal.  I filed a writ of supersedeas (no, I didn’t make up the name nor read in a Harry Potter book).  I filed my writ with the Sixth District Court of Appeal the following day, asking for a stay.  I just stayed up one night and wrote it. It felt like a last-second hail mary.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal issued a partial stay, asking for further briefing.

The battle continues….

No one should be above the law and no one should beneath its protection. Cook County Prosecutor Anita Alvarez only filed charges against Officer Van Dyke in a shooting of a young black male after a court had ordered the release of the dash cam video.

A whole year went by before the charges were filed against Officer Van Dyke for shooting  Laquan McDonald. Cases are filed against civilians in a matter of hours, often in haste for the sake of public safety.  Alvarez lost credibility by waiting a whole year before filing charges against a police officer. In a case where the video made clear that McDonald was repeatedly shot from a distance (16 times), it is disheartening to believe that justice should be delayed for a whole year.  In the video, McDonald does not pose a threat to the officers although he is holding a knife. He is shot repeatedly while lying prone on the ground. No one comes to his aid after he is shot and he is left alone on the street to die. No one attempts to render aid.

To see the video, click below. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-cop-shooting-video-laquan-mcdonald-charges-20151124-story.html

How can one have faith in the prosecutor to uphold the law if it seems that  she only acts because of the imminent release of the video? Why didn’t she file charges six months ago?  Why doesn’t she have the courage to say that this shooting was unjustified until now?  Did it really take a year to decide that they had a case?

There is no good answer to these questions, and it should leave all of us with a lack of confidence that black lives matter.