Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against the operator of an assisted living facility, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and wrongful death after a facility employee moved the decedent, allegedly causing her health to deteriorate and leading to her death eight days later. The Superior Court of Sacramento County granted summary adjudication in favor of the defendant on the negligence and wrongful death claims but denied it as to the breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the entire action without prejudice rather than proceed to trial on the remaining claim.After the voluntary dismissal, plaintiffs appealed, but the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, dismissed the appeal, holding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice was not an appealable final judgment. Plaintiffs then moved in the trial court to set aside their voluntary dismissal; when this was denied, they again appealed, and the Court of Appeal again dismissed, reiterating that there was no appealable final judgment.Subsequently, the trial court entered a judgment of costs in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs appealed from this costs judgment, arguing that it constituted a final judgment that permitted them to challenge all prior orders in the case, including the summary adjudication. The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, rejected this argument, holding that the costs judgment, entered after a nonappealable voluntary dismissal without prejudice, was not itself an appealable final judgment for the purposes of raising the underlying claims. The court explained that plaintiffs were not challenging the costs order itself, but were seeking review of prior nonappealable orders, which is not permitted. The appeal was therefore dismissed. View "Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves an individual, B.K., who has schizophrenia and has been under a conservatorship pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act since 2019. The conservatorship was initially established after B.K. was found to be gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder, and it has been renewed annually following court hearings. In several renewal proceedings, B.K. expressed her desire to contest the conservatorship, at times requesting either a court or jury trial. At the most recent renewal proceeding, B.K. initially requested a jury trial but later, after consulting with her attorney, chose to proceed with a court trial instead. B.K. confirmed this choice in open court.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County conducted the court trial, during which expert testimony and B.K.’s own statements supported a finding that she remained gravely disabled and unable to care for herself due to her mental illness. The court renewed the conservatorship for another year. B.K. appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to adequately advise her of her right to a jury trial or to ensure that her waiver of that right was knowing and intelligent.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. Applying de novo review to statutory claims and substantial evidence review to the trial court’s implied finding, the Court of Appeal concluded that B.K. was aware of her right to a jury trial and that, under the totality of the circumstances, her waiver—made through counsel and confirmed in court—was knowing and intelligent. The appellate court held that direct advisement or a personal waiver was not required under the LPS Act when counsel confers with the conservatee and there is no indication of lack of authority or client understanding. The court affirmed the ruling, finding no reversible error. View "Conservatorship of B.K." on Justia Law

An 11-year-old student, Therese, died by suicide at her father's home during her school’s winter break. Her parents brought claims against the school district, alleging negligent hiring, supervision, and training of staff, failure to protect Therese from bullying, and inadequate response to her expressions of suicidal ideation. They argued the district failed to fulfill its duty to supervise students and to inform them of Therese’s condition. The parents also pursued a survival claim for Therese’s pre-death suffering, alleging harm occurred on campus due to the district’s negligence.The Superior Court of Solano County denied the school district’s motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact as to whether the district exercised reasonable care and whether Therese suffered injury on campus due to the district’s negligence. The court relied on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District, determining that statutory immunity under Education Code section 44808 did not apply because there were factual questions about on-campus harm and failure to exercise reasonable care.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case on a petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court held that under section 44808, the district is immune from liability for harms resulting from Therese’s off-campus suicide, as she was not under the district’s supervision at the time. However, the court determined that this immunity does not extend to the survival claim, which concerns alleged on-campus harm while Therese was under the district’s supervision. The appellate court ordered the trial court to grant summary adjudication in favor of the district on the wrongful death and related claims but allowed the survival claim to proceed. View "Vallejo City Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was indicted along with several co-defendants for the murder of Kisasi Baltrip and related offenses following a grand jury proceeding in 2007. The charges included first-degree murder, conspiracy, discharge of a firearm, and gang participation, with various enhancements. The defendant later pleaded no contest to second-degree murder and other charges as part of a plea agreement, admitting to a firearm enhancement. The factual basis for the plea was stipulated to be found in police reports and grand jury testimony. He was sentenced to 15 years to life plus additional terms for the enhancements and related offenses, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal after a modification to custody credits.Subsequently, the defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, which provides relief to certain individuals convicted of murder under theories that have since been restricted by legislative reform. The Superior Court of Kern County initially denied the petition at the prima facie stage, but the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reversed and remanded for a further hearing. Upon remand, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and admitted the grand jury transcript, police reports, witness statements, and other law enforcement documents over defense objection, relying on these materials to deny the petition on the basis that the defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, held that neither the grand jury transcript nor the law enforcement-generated documents were admissible at the section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing under the governing statutory exception for evidence “previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial.” The court vacated the denial of the petition and remanded for a new evidentiary hearing, permitting the prosecution the opportunity to present admissible evidence. The holding was not that the petition should be granted outright, but rather that a new hearing must be held applying proper evidentiary standards. View "P. v. Dixon" on Justia Law

The underlying dispute arose after a public university system in California revised its student vaccination policy, reducing the number of mandatory immunizations required for incoming students as of fall 2023. The faculty union, representing teaching and academic staff, believed this policy change could negatively affect the health and safety of faculty members, especially those who are immunocompromised. Upon learning of the change shortly after its adoption, the union formally demanded bargaining over the policy’s effects. The university responded that the policy did not pertain to employment terms but was willing to meet and discuss the union’s concerns. The union declined this offer and instead filed an unfair practice charge, alleging the university failed to bargain in good faith.An administrative law judge for the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) heard the case and found that, while the vaccination policy itself was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, its foreseeable effects on faculty health required effects bargaining. The judge concluded the university violated its statutory duty by implementing the policy without bargaining and ordered remedies including rescinding the policy and compensating affected employees. The university contested these findings, asserting it neither implemented the policy before the charge was filed nor refused to bargain, and that accommodations for affected faculty were already available under disability laws.On review, PERB largely upheld the administrative law judge’s findings, holding the university had a duty to bargain over the effects of the policy and had begun implementing it without sufficient notice and opportunity for bargaining. However, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, found that while substantial evidence supported PERB’s conclusion that the policy had reasonably foreseeable effects on faculty health and thus required effects bargaining, there was no substantial evidence the university had implemented the policy or definitively refused to bargain prior to the union’s charge. Therefore, the court affirmed PERB’s ruling on the duty to bargain effects, but vacated the finding of a statutory violation and the associated remedies, remanding the matter for the parties to engage in effects bargaining. View "Trustees of the Cal. State Univ. v. Public Emp. Relations Bd." on Justia Law

A man faced criminal charges stemming from two separate incidents: one in San Diego in August 2020, where he struck a taxi driver with a skateboard during what appeared to be a psychotic episode, and another in Newport Beach in March 2022, where he damaged property at a car dealership and stole a yacht, causing injury and property damage. After the first incident, he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and granted pretrial mental health diversion, but this was revoked following the second incident. After the Newport Beach offense, he was diagnosed by another expert with bipolar disorder and related conditions, with evidence suggesting he had been misdiagnosed and improperly medicated prior to the second incident.The Superior Court of Orange County considered his motion for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, supported by expert reports stating his mental health conditions contributed to the offenses and that he would likely respond to treatment without posing an unreasonable risk to public safety if treated in the community. The prosecution opposed, arguing prior diversion had failed and that he posed a danger. The trial court denied the motion, finding him eligible but not suitable for diversion due to doubts about his responsiveness to treatment and concerns about danger to public safety, relying in part on his history of declining treatment and the circumstances of the offenses.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed whether the lower court had abused its discretion. The appellate court held that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard regarding responsiveness to treatment by disregarding the uncontradicted opinion of a qualified mental health expert. It also found the trial court’s determination that the defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger was not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court granted a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying diversion and to reconsider the motion consistent with the proper legal standards. View "Siam v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Tara Starr petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to Thomas Starr, with the principal dispute centering on the date of separation—Tara claimed 2012 and Thomas asserted 2020. Tara’s original petition alleged a separation date of March 20, 2009, but after retaining counsel, she amended her petition to allege June 2, 2020, as the separation date. Throughout subsequent proceedings, including case management statements, trial briefs, and settlement conference statements, Tara consistently maintained that the actual separation occurred in 2012, and Thomas continued to dispute her position, claiming September 2020.The Contra Costa County Superior Court presided over pretrial and trial proceedings. The matter was bifurcated to first determine the separation date. At the trial, the court, sua sponte, raised the issue that Tara was bound by her amended petition’s allegation of June 2, 2020, as the separation date and suggested there was no controversy. Despite both parties previously treating the date as contested and preparing for trial on that issue, the court held Tara to the June 2020 date, after Thomas ultimately accepted it, and entered an order accordingly. Tara’s subsequent motion to set aside the order was denied, with the court finding her pleading to be a deliberate litigation strategy and not a mistake.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that Tara’s amended petition did not constitute a binding judicial admission regarding the date of separation, as Thomas had consistently contested the allegation throughout the litigation, and both parties prepared for trial on the disputed issue. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine the separation date, denying Tara’s request for reassignment to a different judge. Tara was awarded costs on appeal. View "In re Marriage of Starr" on Justia Law

A married couple initiated divorce proceedings, with the primary dispute centering on the date of their separation. The wife, Tara, initially claimed in her petition that the separation occurred in 2009, while the husband, Thomas, claimed it was in September 2020. Tara later amended her petition, with the assistance of counsel, to allege a separation date of June 2, 2020. Despite this, in subsequent filings and during trial preparation, Tara consistently asserted that the actual separation occurred in 2012 and provided evidence and argument to support this claim. Both parties, through multiple attorneys and case management statements, continued to treat the date of separation as a contested issue, preparing for trial on whether the separation occurred in 2012 or 2020.The Contra Costa County Superior Court addressed the issue during a bifurcated trial. On the day of trial, the court, on its own initiative, declared that Tara was bound by the June 2, 2020 separation date alleged in her amended petition, characterizing it as a binding judicial admission. The court reasoned that Tara’s failure to formally amend her petition again prevented her from arguing a different date. When Thomas ultimately accepted the June 2, 2020 date to avoid trial, the court adopted this date as the legal separation and denied Tara’s subsequent motion to set aside the order or to permit another amendment to her petition.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that under the circumstances, the trial court erred in treating the separation date in the amended petition as a judicial admission binding Tara. The appellate court explained that a judicial admission requires the adverse party not to contest the allegation, which did not occur here, as Thomas continued to dispute the separation date throughout the proceedings until the trial began. The order was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings to determine the actual date of separation. The appellate court declined to order reassignment to a different trial judge. View "Marriage of Starr" on Justia Law

The defendant, who had previously been convicted of first degree burglary and attempted first degree burglary, was found by a jury to have committed these offenses while a person was present. In a separate proceeding, the trial court determined that he had three prior felony convictions qualifying under California’s Three Strikes law, three prior serious felony convictions, and a prior prison term enhancement. He was initially sentenced to 66 years to life, which was later reduced to 41 years to life. Following referral from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the defendant sought resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, requesting the trial court exercise its discretion to dismiss certain prior convictions and enhancements based on changes to Penal Code section 1385 and arguments under People v. Superior Court (Romero).The Superior Court of Los Angeles County held a hearing at which the defendant requested dismissal of two prior strike convictions and one five-year prior serious felony enhancement, citing age and conduct in prison. The People opposed, arguing the Three Strikes sentence was appropriate. The trial court dismissed the one-year prior prison term enhancement and struck the three five-year prior serious felony conviction enhancements but declined to dismiss any prior strike convictions under the Three Strikes law. The defendant was resentenced to 25 years to life.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed whether the amended section 1385, subdivision (c), applied to the Three Strikes law and whether the rule of lenity could extend its application. The court held that section 1385, subdivision (c), as amended by Senate Bill No. 81, does not apply to the Three Strikes law, since the law constitutes an alternative sentencing scheme, not an enhancement. The court also found no statutory ambiguity warranting application of the rule of lenity. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. View "P. v. Grandberry" on Justia Law

A licensed sidewalk vendor who had operated outside Petco Park in San Diego since 2009 was cited multiple times in mid-2024 under newly enacted city ordinances regulating sidewalk vending. On two occasions, city officials also impounded his merchandise and, in one instance, his sales proceeds. The vendor, who holds a valid city vending permit, alleged that the new ordinances, particularly those related to impoundment and restrictions on vending during certain hours and events, conflicted with state law enacted in 2018 designed to protect the rights of sidewalk vendors. He sought a writ of mandate, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of these local provisions.The Superior Court of San Diego County denied the vendor’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court acknowledged the negative impact on the vendor’s livelihood but found there was a minimal probability of success on the merits, reasoning that the city’s restrictions were permissible under the state law’s allowance for regulations related to health, safety, or welfare. The court concluded that the balance of harms favored the city, given public interest considerations, and thus refused to enjoin enforcement of the challenged ordinances.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, examined both the factual record and the legal questions concerning the interplay between the municipal code and state law. The appellate court held that the city’s ordinances authorizing impoundment of vending equipment and restricting vending hours in nonresidential areas more stringently than for other businesses are in direct conflict with state law. The court found the trial court erred by not adequately considering these conflicts. The appellate court reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to apply the correct legal standards and further develop the record as needed. View "Mustaqeem v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law