Appellant, a court reporter, appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, after the trial court denied his petition for writ of mandate to compel respondent, the Court Reporter's Board of California, to vacate its order of discipline imposed against appellant's license.

The trial court concluded that a court reporter engaged in unprofessional conduct in the practice of shorthand reporting when, as part of his subcontracting business, he induced other shorthand reporters to perform services on his behalf and then failed to pay them for services rendered. The court reporter's sole contention on appeal was that the failure to pay his subcontractors for reporting CACI loss of consortium services, without any evidence that such failure adversely affected the duties or services he provided to his clients, was unrelated to the practice of shorthand reporting and not within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Court Reporter's Board of California. The appellate court agreed. The failure to pay subcontractors, even if the subcontractors' services were fraudulently induced, was not unprofessional conduct in the practice of shorthand reporting, as defined in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 8015, 8025. Such conduct was subject to other remedies.

The judgment was reversed, and the matter was remanded with directions.

Appellants owners of a liquor license sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which denied their petition for writ of mandamus to review an order of respondent, the Director of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, revoking their license for violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25601, keeping a disorderly house, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24200.5, knowingly permitting illegal sale of narcotics.

An investigator for the district attorney went to a lodge operated by the license holders on several occasions and purchased marijuana cigarettes. He also saw other such purchases and several people smoking marijuana. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board held the evidence was sufficient under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24200.5 and, as mandatorily required by that section, revoked the license. The trial court found that the decision of the Director was supported by substantial evidence and denied their petition. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the evidence showed "successive sales" of narcotics "over any continuous period" and that the license holders were presumed to know. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24200.5(a) was not unconstitutional as applied to the license holders. Whether the sales were made by an employee or by patrons made no difference, and the evidence supported the statutory presumption that the license owners were aware of the illegal activities on their premises.

The judgment denying the license owners' petition for writ of mandamus was affirmed.

Author's Bio: 

Marina Pal is a renowned author and social media enthusiast.