Filed 4/12/23 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR HECTOR CASTELLANOS et al., Plaintiffs and A163655 Respondents, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG21088725) STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., ORDER MODIFYING Defendants and OPINION; NO CHANGE Appellants; IN JUDGMENT PROTECT APP-BASED DRIVERS AND SERVICES et al., Interveners and Appellants. THE COURT*: The concurrence and dissent to this opinion filed on March 13, 2023, is modified as follows: 1. On page 18 of the concurrence and dissent, in second full paragraph (which begins: “The deficiency I see here is structural.”), in the last sentence of text, change the state constitutional *Brown, P. J., Streeter, J., Pollak, J. (Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution). 1 reference at the end of that sentence from “article XIV, section 4” to “article XII, section 5” so the sentence reads: Because voter “electors” and the “Legislature” share the police power, they may each legislate on the subject of workers’ compensation, which is why our Supreme Court has held that the article II, section 8(a) power to adopt initiative statutes is “encompass[ed]” within the Legislature’s article XII, section 5 power. 2. On page 20 of the concurrence and dissent, in the partial paragraph at the top of the page, delete the phrase “workers’ compensation matters” and insert in its place the phrase “matters falling within the scope of that provision” so that it reads: pointed out that the electors’ ability to adopt statutes by initiative is a “similar power” to that of the Legislature under article XII, section 5 (McPherson, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1033), not that the electors are “the Legislature” when they legislate on matters falling within the scope of that provision, having simply stepped into the shoes of the Legislature, clothed with article XII, section 5, authority. 3. On page 43 of the concurrence and dissent, in the first full paragraph (which begins: “Disagreeing with me on this point, . . .”), in the last sentence of text, change the word “appeared” to “appears” so that it reads: Nor do these cases give any reason for why the binding effect clause should be read as an implicit partial definition of “employer,” a term that appears nowhere in the constitutional language and was already fully defined in the statutory scheme the voters ratified in 1918. The modifications effect no change in the judgment. Dated: April 12, 2023 2 Trial Court: Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Trial Judge: Hon. Frank Roesch Counsel: Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mark Beckington, Supervising Deputy Attorney General and Jose A. Zelidon-Zepeda, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendants and Appellants. O’Melveny & Myers, Jeffery L. Fisher; Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, Arthur G. Scotland, Sean P. Welch, Kurt R. Oneto and David J. Lazarus, for Interveners …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals