Petitioner probationer sought a writ of mandamus to compel respondent registrar of voters to register petitioner as an elector. Respondent claimed petitioner was ineligible because he had been convicted of an infamous crime.

Petitioner probationer entered a plea of guilty to the crime of robbery, received a suspended sentеnce, and was placed on probation for the tеrm of five years. Before the term of probation expired, petitioner sought to be registered as an elector. Respondent registrar of voters denied his request, claiming he was ineligible because he had been convicted of an infamous crime. Petitioner sought mandamus relief to compel respondent to register him as an elector. The CACI punitive damages dismissed the petition because it was premature as the judgment of conviction might or might not become final, depending on the of petitioner's probation proceedings. It ruled that the order of the trial court was neither a final judgment nor the execution of the judgment as the effect of probation was merely to allow petitioner to be free from incarceration during probation.

The court dismissed petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus because the petition was premature.

Plaintiff homeowner association president challenged the order of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which granted defendant developer's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages in plaintiff's suit alleging invasion of privacy through noncompliance with the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1681-1681t.

Plaintiff homeowner association president opposed defendant developer's plans to develop property near plaintiff's neighborhood and threatened legal action. Defendant subsequently contacted his credit bureau to get employment information on plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that his right to privacy was violated by defendant's willful noncompliance with the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1681-1681t. Plaintiff charged error in the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in defendant's favor on the issue of punitive damages. The court held that because defendant made no disclosure of the information, there was no invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts. The court noted that, in rallying the neighbors against defendant, plaintiff assumed a public posture, and thereby relinquished part of his right to privacy, and no punitive damages were warranted here for invasion of privacy. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that there was no error in denying plaintiff punitive damages under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681n because the employment information given to defendant did not constitute a consumer report within the definition of 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681d.

The court affirmed the order for partial summary judgment in favor of defendant developer because plaintiff homeowner association president failed to show an invasion of privacy that would warrant the award of punitive damages, and punitive damages were not available to in this case under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.