Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Christina DeBenedetti and Morgan Ensburg were involved in a marital dissolution case where the trial court assigned four of Morgan’s ERISA-governed retirement accounts to Christina through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). This assignment was to satisfy an award made against Morgan after the court found he breached his fiduciary duty to Christina, resulting in a loss of community property. The total amount ordered for reimbursement and attorney fees exceeded $2 million.The Superior Court of San Diego County initially issued QDROs dividing the community property interests in Morgan’s retirement accounts. After a trial on reserved financial disputes, the court found Morgan had mismanaged community property and awarded Christina $1,831,250 for her share of the lost assets and $230,000 in attorney fees. Christina later sought to enforce this award through new QDROs, which the trial court granted, assigning her 100% of Morgan’s remaining interests in the retirement plans.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. Morgan argued that the QDROs did not relate to “marital property rights” and violated ERISA’s purpose of protecting retirement income. He also claimed the QDROs were invalid under California law and that the trial court did not value the retirement accounts. The appellate court rejected Morgan’s contentions, holding that the QDROs related to marital property rights, complied with ERISA, and that California laws cited by Morgan were either preempted by ERISA or did not invalidate the orders. The court also found that Morgan’s argument regarding the valuation of the retirement accounts was not raised in the trial court and could not be considered on appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s orders. View "In re Marriage of DeBenedetti" on Justia Law

In 2001, Phuoc Thien Luu, then 17, participated in an attempted home invasion robbery with three others. One accomplice shot the homeowner, who survived. Luu and another accomplice, Dung Van Nguyen, were charged with attempted murder and related crimes. Nguyen was found guilty of attempted murder and sentenced to 102 years to life plus 10 years. Luu was found not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter and related crimes, receiving a sentence of 25 years to life plus 1.5 years.In 2022, both Luu and Nguyen filed petitions under Penal Code section 1172.6 for resentencing. The People conceded Nguyen was entitled to relief, and he was released. However, they argued Luu was ineligible because attempted manslaughter is not mentioned in section 1172.6. The trial court initially issued an order to show cause but later ruled Luu was statutorily ineligible for relief.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that excluding Luu from relief under section 1172.6, despite his conviction under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, led to an unjust and absurd result. The court held that a petitioner is eligible for relief under section 1172.6 if they were charged with attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted manslaughter. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case, directing the trial court to reissue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing. If the People cannot prove Luu's guilt under current laws, the court must resentence him with credit for time served. View "People v. Luu" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the City, alleging violations of the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the California Constitution. The City maintains a website for public records requests but the Department of Water and Power (DWP) does not provide a specific method for such requests. Plaintiff, after receiving an erroneous water bill, submitted multiple records requests through the DWP website but received no response. She later posted a complaint on social media, which led to a phone call from a customer service representative but no records were provided.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that the CPRA does not permit class claims and that plaintiff’s individual claim was insufficient because the City provides a method for submitting CPRA requests through its main website. The court also denied the City’s motion for sanctions, finding plaintiff’s arguments were not frivolous.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court agreed with the trial court that the CPRA does not allow for class claims, as the statutory language and case law limit judicial relief to the individual who made the records request. However, the appellate court found that plaintiff’s individual claim was sufficient, as she alleged that she submitted a request for public records and the City failed to respond within the statutory period. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded with directions to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer as to the class claims and overruling the demurrer to plaintiff’s individual CPRA claim. View "Di Lauro v. City of Burbank" on Justia Law

In 2006, a jury convicted the defendant of robbery and assault with a firearm, with enhancements for personal firearm use and prior convictions. The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life for the robbery, 10 years for the firearm enhancement, and five years for a prior serious felony conviction, staying the sentence for the assault conviction. In 2024, the defendant petitioned for resentencing under the amended Penal Code section 1172.1, which the trial court dismissed, stating that the defendant was not entitled to file such a petition and that no authorized agency had recommended recall and resentencing.The defendant appealed the trial court's dismissal of his petition. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed whether the trial court's order was appealable. The court noted that under section 1237, subdivision (b), a criminal defendant can appeal any postjudgment order affecting their substantial rights. However, the court found that the trial court's order did not affect the defendant's substantial rights because the trial court had no statutory obligation to act on the defendant's request for recall and resentencing.The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court's order dismissing the defendant's request for relief under section 1172.1 was not appealable. The court reasoned that since the trial court was not required to respond to the defendant's request, the order did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "P. v. Roy" on Justia Law

Anthony Frank Romane, Jr. was arrested for driving under the influence after being found unconscious in his car. He exhibited signs of intoxication and failed field sobriety tests. At the police station, he refused to submit to a chemical test after being read the Chemical Test Admonition. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) initiated proceedings to suspend his license for one year due to his refusal to submit to testing. Romane requested an Administrative Per Se (APS) hearing to challenge the suspension.The APS hearing was conducted by a single hearing officer, Trena Leota, who introduced three documents into evidence: the arresting officer’s sworn DS 367 form, the unsworn arrest report, and Romane’s driving record. Romane’s counsel objected, arguing that the hearing officer was acting as an advocate, violating due process as explained in California DUI Lawyers Association v. Department of Motor Vehicles. The hearing officer overruled the objections and admitted the documents. Romane’s bodyworn camera footage was also admitted into evidence. The hearing officer ultimately sustained the suspension of Romane’s license.Romane filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the Superior Court of San Diego County, arguing that his due process rights were violated because the hearing officer acted as both advocate and adjudicator. The superior court agreed and ordered the DMV to set aside the suspension unless a new hearing was conducted with separate individuals acting as advocate and adjudicator.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case and reversed the superior court’s decision. The appellate court held that the hearing officer did not act as an advocate but merely collected and developed evidence, which is constitutionally permissible. The case was remanded to the superior court to consider Romane’s contention that the evidence did not support the hearing officer’s findings. View "Romane v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

Calvin Glass, Jr. pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter of Jordan Luis with the personal use of a firearm and the attempted murder of Julius L. He was sentenced to 21 years in state prison. Glass later filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, which was denied by the trial court for failure to state a prima facie case for relief. Glass argued on appeal that his guilty plea could not rule out imputed malice and that the trial court improperly considered matters outside the record of conviction.The Superior Court of San Diego County initially found Glass's petition facially valid, appointed him counsel, and set a hearing. The People argued that Glass was ineligible for relief because his record of conviction showed he was the actual killer and direct perpetrator of the attempted murder. The trial court ruled that Glass was ineligible for resentencing based on his sworn statements in the plea form and at the plea hearing, which indicated he was the killer. The court also referenced a prior opinion affirming Glass's judgment to corroborate its decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court agreed with the People that Glass's record of conviction indicated he was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. However, following the precedent set by People v. Patton, the court decided to remand the matter to the superior court. Glass was granted 30 days to supplement his petition with additional facts to support his claim. The order denying his resentencing petition was otherwise conditionally affirmed. View "People v. Glass" on Justia Law

A former employee, Corbin Williams, worked as an insurance adjuster for Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC, from 2014 until January 2022. Williams typically worked 84-hour weeks but was not paid overtime, violating the Labor Code. In March 2023, over a year after his employment ended, Williams notified the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency of his intent to pursue a PAGA action for these violations. He then filed a lawsuit seeking civil penalties on behalf of other current and former employees but not on his own behalf.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained a demurrer to Williams's complaint without leave to amend, finding the action time-barred. The court noted that Williams had not suffered any Labor Code violations within the one-year statute of limitations period before notifying the Agency, as his employment ended in January 2022. Consequently, the court did not address the defendant's alternative argument regarding Williams's standing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that to be a PAGA plaintiff, an individual must have a timely individual claim for at least one Labor Code violation. Since Williams's individual claims were time-barred, he could not satisfy this requirement. The court rejected Williams's arguments that other aggrieved employees' timely claims could substitute for his own untimely claims and that the continuous accrual doctrine applied. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend, as Williams's proposed amendments would not cure the timeliness defect. View "Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Grp." on Justia Law

In June 2021, the defendant, K.D., stole a car with a one-year-old child inside. She was arrested shortly after and found with the stolen items. K.D. admitted to taking the car and knowing the child was inside. She was charged with kidnapping, child abduction, and vehicle theft. K.D.'s defense counsel raised doubts about her competency, leading to evaluations that diagnosed her with a moderate intellectual disability. She was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to the Porterville Developmental Center for treatment. After being declared competent in August 2022, K.D. requested developmental disability diversion.The Mendocino County Superior Court initially denied K.D.'s request for diversion, citing her lack of ties to the community, her criminal history, and concerns about her ability to comply with diversion requirements. The court also noted that K.D. had never received services from the regional center and had a history of probation violations. Despite acknowledging her developmental disability, the court concluded that her disability was not related to the charged offense and that she would not benefit from diversion.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had abused its discretion by not properly considering the relationship between K.D.'s developmental disability and the charged offense. The appellate court noted that the trial court failed to ensure that the regional center provided a proper report and diversion plan tailored to K.D.'s needs. The appellate court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new diversion eligibility hearing, instructing the trial court to comply with statutory requirements and consider whether K.D. would benefit from diversion. If K.D. satisfactorily completes diversion, the charges should be dismissed; otherwise, her conviction should be reinstated. View "People v. K.D." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of Vicar Operating, Inc., filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Vicar failed to provide the required meal periods as mandated by California Labor Code section 512 and IWC Wage Orders Nos. 4-2001 and 5-2001. Vicar contended that the plaintiffs had signed valid written agreements prospectively waiving their meal periods for shifts between five and six hours, which could be revoked at any time. The plaintiffs argued that such prospective waivers allowed employers to circumvent statutory meal break requirements and denied employees a meaningful opportunity to exercise their right to meal breaks.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted summary adjudication in favor of Vicar, determining that the prospective waivers were valid under section 512 and the wage orders. The court found that the plain language of the statute and wage orders permitted such waivers and distinguished the case from Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, which did not address the timing of meal break waivers. The court also concluded that a DLSE opinion letter cited by the plaintiffs was not applicable as it interpreted different wage order regulations.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the revocable, prospective waivers signed by the plaintiffs were enforceable in the absence of any evidence that the waivers were unconscionable or unduly coercive. The court concluded that the prospective written waiver of a 30-minute meal period for shifts between five and six hours was consistent with the text and purpose of section 512 and Wage Order Nos. 4 and 5. The court also determined that the legislative and administrative history confirmed that such waivers were consistent with the welfare of employees and that Brinker did not require a contrary result. View "Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Zackary Diamond was injured by a punch from a third party during an altercation in the restricted pit area at Bakersfield Speedway. He alleged that the defendants, Scott Schweitzer, Schweitzer Motorsports Productions, and Christian Schweitzer, were negligent in providing security, responding to the altercation, and undertaking rescue efforts. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Diamond's claims were barred by a release and waiver of liability form he signed to enter the pit area. The trial court granted the motion, finding the release clear, unequivocal, and broad in scope, covering the negligent conduct alleged.The Superior Court of Kern County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the release included risks related to racing activities and that the assault was such a risk. The court interpreted the release as covering the type of event that occurred, thus barring Diamond's negligence claims.On appeal, Diamond contended that the release was unenforceable because the injury-producing act was not reasonably related to the purpose of the release, which he described as observing the race from the pit area. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, concluded that the release met the requirements for enforceability: it was clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent to release all liability for Diamond's injury; the alleged acts of negligence were reasonably related to the purpose of the release; and the release did not contravene public policy. The court also found that the defendants adequately raised a complete defense based on the signed release and that Diamond failed to rebut this defense. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Diamond v. Schweitzer" on Justia Law