California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Molina v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., B227746, B233272, B234675, B237836 (Cal. App. 2013):
Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th 715 explained: "the question whether a procedural device used in judicial proceedings to deprive a defendant of property comports with due process is determined by a balancing of interests: '[F]irst, consideration of the private interest that will be affected by the [procedure]; second, an examination of the risk of erroneous deprivation through the procedures under attack and the probable value of additional or alternative safeguards; and third, . . . principal attention to the interest of the party seeking the [procedure], with, nonetheless, due regard for any ancillary interest the government may have in providing the procedure or forgoing the added burden of providing greater protections.' [Citations.]" (Id. at pp. 751-752 quoting Connecticut v. Doehr (1991) 501 U.S. 1, 11.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.