The Dominguez Firm—widely touted on bus ads and on billboards—will probably lose on the merits in a malicious prosecution action brought by a business that was sued by the lawyers on behalf of a woman who claimed to have been wrongfully terminated even though she had signed a paper saying she was voluntarily resigning, the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday, affirming the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion.

Denying a defendant the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses in a hearing on a petition to renew a workplace restraining order was harmless error where the petition was based on the same evidence as the final order in the original case and other testimony offered was irrelevant to the determination of whether the request should be granted, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held yesterday.

(Subscription required) The Ninth Circuit on Friday declined to revive an attorney's claims alleging the California State Bar violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by not granting extra time to respond to disciplinary action based on outstanding debt, finding the bar, as an arm of the state, is entitled to sovereign immunity.

In People v. Bankston, People v. Barrera, and People v. Chhuon and Pan, the parties were directed to address: (1) Once a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(2) is established on direct appeal, is an analysis for harmless error required under article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution before relief can be granted under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (e)(2), regardless of whether there is a statutory obligation to conduct a harmless error analysis under Penal Code section 745?