 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taiheiyo Cement Corp. v. Superior Court of the State of California for the Superior county of Los Angeles1/15/2003
he trial court also ruled section 354.6 did not violate due process, but rather legitimately extended statute of limitations that would otherwise bar claims by slave or forced labor victims. This petition followed.
Basis for Writ Review
In most cases, a review of rulings on pleadings is restricted to an appeal from a final judgment unless circumstances are "of such grave nature or of such significant legal impact that [the court is] compelled to intervene through the issuance of an extraordinary writ." (Babb v. Superior Court (1971) 3 Cal.3d 841, 851.)
We agreed to review this case at the pleading stage because the constitutionality of section 354.6 represents a legal issue of widespread interest and significant legal importance. (See Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813, 816; Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1266, 1269-1270.) In addition, because numerous cases asserting claims under section 354.6 are currently pending in the superior court and no California appellate court has yet ruled on the validity of this statute, we concluded writ review was warranted and authorized numerous amici curiae to present briefs in support of and in opposition to the petition.
Because this case involves pure questions of law, we are not bound by the trial court's decision. We therefore review it de novo, mindful that Jeong's factual allegations are assumed true. (People v. Kennedy (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 288, 292; Baughman v. State of California (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 182, 187.)
Discussion
A. Section 354.6 and Taiheiyo's Contentions
The California Legislature enacted section 354.6 in 1999 as an emergency measure to extend the statute of limitations for a defined class of claims relating to forced or slave labor performed prior to and during WWII. (S.B. 1245.) The statute allows any WWII "slave labor victim" or "forced labor victim," or their heirs, to "bring an action to recover compensation for labor performed as a . . . slave labor victim or . . . forced labor victim from any entity or successor in interest thereof, for whom that labor was performed . . . ." (§354.6, subd. (b).) The statute provides that California courts have jurisdiction over such actions. (Ibid.) Section 354.6 was enacted because "California has a moral and public policy interest in assuring that its residents and citizens are given a reasonable opportunity to claim their entitlement to compensation for forced or slave labor performed prior to and during the Second World War." (S.B. 1245, §1(c).)
Section 354.6, subdivision (c), provides that " ny action brought under this section shall not be dismissed for failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations, if the action is commenced on or before December 31, 2010." In declaring its specific intent, the Legislature added, "To the extent that the statute of limitations applicable to claims for compensation is extended by this act, that extension of the limitations period is intended to be applied retroactively, irrespective of whether the claims were otherwise barred by any applicable statute of limitations under any other provision of law prior to the enactment of this act." (S.B. 1245, §1(d).)
Taiheiyo and amici curiae in support of the petition make four basic contentions concerning the invalidity of section 354.6. First, the 1951 Treaty either expressly or impliedly preempts section 354.6 because it demonstrates the policy of the federal government concerning WWII claims of Korean nationals like Jeong. Second, section 354.6 is unconstitutional under Zschernig because it usurps the federal government's exclusive power over foreign affairs. Third,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Classified Ads
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|