Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a defendant who was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon after allegedly committing a series of violent, racially motivated attacks using a metal pipe. The defendant, who has a documented history of serious mental illness, substance abuse, and noncompliance with treatment, moved for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. The motion was supported by a psychological report indicating that the defendant’s mental disorder was treatable and played a significant role in the offenses, but the expert’s opinion that the defendant would not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety was conditioned on his compliance with treatment.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the motion for diversion, ordering the defendant into a community-based mental health program with regular medication, monitoring, and court oversight. The People, represented by the district attorney, opposed the diversion and subsequently petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate. They argued that no evidence demonstrated the defendant would actually comply with treatment if released into the community, and thus, there was insufficient support for the trial court’s implied finding that he would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the record and found that there was no express or substantial evidence supporting the trial court's implicit determination that the defendant would not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if treated in the community. The appellate court held that, where there is a history of noncompliance with treatment and no evidence of likely future compliance, a court abuses its discretion in granting diversion. Accordingly, the appellate court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order granting mental health diversion and to enter a new order denying the motion. View "People v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A group of landowners and mutual water companies in Ventura County, California, claimed rights to groundwater from the Las Posas Valley Groundwater Basin, which supplies water for agricultural, commercial, and domestic purposes. The groundwater basin had been subject to restrictions and management by the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (Fox Canyon), especially in light of overdraft conditions and the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Disputes arose over groundwater pumping allocations, historical use, and the proper method for determining and allocating water rights among various landowners, mutual water companies, and public agencies.The case was brought as a comprehensive groundwater adjudication in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, proceeding in three phases. First, the court established the initial “Total Safe Yield” of the basin and allocated a portion to certain public water suppliers. In the second phase, the court, after a trial and a settlement agreed to by a large majority of parties, allocated the remaining rights among landowners, prioritizing overlying landowners and finding no surplus for appropriators. The third phase established a “physical solution” for basin management, appointing Fox Canyon as watermaster and integrating the settlement into a final judgment. Several parties, including Mahan Ranch and two mutual water companies, objected to aspects of the allocations and the final judgment, raising issues about the treatment of mutual water companies, the handling of dormant rights, and the legality of the court's actions.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court properly allocated water rights based on overlying landowners’ rights, not directly to mutual water companies, and that there was no surplus for appropriators. The court found the physical solution and allocations consistent with California law, the Constitution, and SGMA, and that non-stipulating parties were treated equitably. The judgment was affirmed. View "Las Posas Valley Water v. Ventura County Waterworks" on Justia Law

The defendant, who had an extensive criminal history involving theft and related crimes, pleaded guilty to three counts of commercial burglary and one count of taking an automobile, and admitted to two prior strike convictions and various aggravating circumstances. He sought mental health diversion based on a psychologist’s evaluation that diagnosed him with several mental health disorders, including a major neurocognitive disorder due to brain injury, major depressive disorder, PTSD, ADHD, and opioid-use disorder in early remission. The defendant argued that these disorders compelled his repeated theft offenses.In the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, the trial court considered the defendant’s request for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. After reviewing the psychologist’s report and other evidence, the trial court found little to no evidence that the defendant’s mental health diagnoses were significant factors in the commission of the charged offenses. The court also found that the defendant would pose an unreasonable danger to public safety, in part due to his prior residential burglary convictions and ongoing criminality. Based on these findings, the trial court denied the request for mental health diversion and sentenced the defendant to twelve years in state prison.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the trial court acted within its discretion by not crediting the psychologist’s opinion and by making adverse factual findings regarding the connection between the mental health diagnoses and the offenses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of mental health diversion and upheld the judgment. View "People v. Nelson" on Justia Law

A participant in the federal Section 8 housing assistance program received notice from the local housing authority that her benefits would be terminated based on several alleged violations, including a recent eviction for serious lease violations, untimely submission of eligibility documentation, failure to allow an inspection, and failure to maintain her unit. The participant contested the termination, explaining that her appeal of the eviction was still pending and that she ultimately complied with inspection and paperwork requirements.At the administrative hearing, the hearing officer concluded that because a court-ordered eviction had occurred and, according to the officer, had been upheld on appeal, termination of assistance was mandatory under federal regulations. The participant then petitioned the Superior Court of Riverside County for a writ of administrative mandamus, arguing that the finding regarding her eviction was factually incorrect, as the appeal was still pending. Soon after, the appellate division of the Riverside County Superior Court reversed the eviction judgment for insufficient evidence. The trial court acknowledged that the hearing officer’s findings regarding the eviction were not supported by the record. However, it proceeded to independently review the evidence and found other violations of program obligations, upholding the housing authority’s discretionary decision to terminate benefits.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, found that the trial court misunderstood the scope of judicial review under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The appellate court held that the trial court was required to review whether the administrative agency’s factual findings—not any alternative grounds—were supported by the record. Since the hearing officer’s findings were unsupported and the court could not uphold termination based on new grounds not adjudicated at the administrative hearing, the judgment was reversed with instructions to grant the petition and vacate the termination of assistance. View "Harrington v. Housing Authority of Riverside County" on Justia Law

For many years, the federal government and private entities engaged in activities at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County, resulting in significant environmental contamination. The Boeing Company, which owns much of the site, planned to demolish several buildings within a specific area known as Area IV. California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is authorized to regulate chemical contamination cleanup at the site, and its actions are subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 2013, after Boeing notified DTSC of its demolition intent, the plaintiffs raised concerns about environmental impacts and filed a writ petition alleging DTSC failed to comply with CEQA.The Superior Court of Sacramento County denied the plaintiffs’ petition, finding that demolition activities were private actions not subject to CEQA’s discretionary approval requirements, and thus not subject to CEQA review. The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed this decision, and the California Supreme Court declined review. During subsequent events, DTSC voluntarily included an environmental analysis of the building demolition in its final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), released after the litigation had concluded.The plaintiffs then sought attorney fees under California’s private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5), arguing that their litigation was the catalyst for DTSC’s changed conduct. The superior court denied the fee request, finding the plaintiffs were not a “successful party” under the catalyst theory because their lawsuit had been resolved on the merits against them, and thus there was no “threat of victory” that motivated DTSC’s actions.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the denial. The court held that attorney fees under the catalyst theory are not warranted where the moving party lost on the merits, and there was no causal connection between the litigation and the agency’s subsequent voluntary actions. DTSC was awarded its costs on appeal. View "Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control" on Justia Law

A woman began using talcum powder products from a cosmetics company as a child in the 1950s, continued through the late 1970s, and resumed use from 1995 to 2010. She was later diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease associated with asbestos exposure. She and her husband sued multiple companies, alleging that asbestos in cosmetic and automotive products caused her illness. By the time of trial, only the cosmetics company and one other defendant remained; the other defendant is not a party to this appeal. After her passing, her husband continued the suit as her successor.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County presided over a lengthy trial. A jury found the cosmetics company liable on multiple grounds: strict liability for inadequate warnings, manufacturing and design defects, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment. The jury further found the company had acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, justifying punitive damages. The jury awarded over $40 million in compensatory damages and $10.3 million in punitive damages, apportioning 90 percent of fault to the company. The company appealed, challenging several evidentiary rulings and the sufficiency of the evidence.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that the cosmetics company had waived its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and most of its evidentiary objections. It found no abuse of discretion by the trial court in admitting the plaintiffs' expert testimony or excluding the company’s corporate witness due to lack of disclosure and personal knowledge. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, including all damages awards and findings of liability. View "LAOSD Asbestos Cases" on Justia Law

A former employee brought suit against his prior employer, alleging that the employer’s compensation plan for commissions violated several provisions of the California Labor Code. The employee claimed that the employer’s use of a “windfall” provision, which limited commission payments when revenue goals were substantially exceeded, resulted in retroactive reductions to earned commissions. The employer invoked this provision after the employee and others exceeded their sales goals, causing the employee’s final commission payment to be lower than anticipated. The employee resigned and later sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), as well as damages for alleged unpaid wages and other Labor Code violations.The Superior Court of Alameda County compelled arbitration of the employee’s individual claims but allowed the PAGA claims to proceed in court. During arbitration, the arbitrator found in favor of the employer on all individual claims, concluding that the compensation plan’s “windfall” provision did not violate the Labor Code sections at issue. The arbitrator determined that the commissions in question were not subject to the statutory requirements argued by the employee, and that the plan did not involve unlawful wage recapture or secret underpayment. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award, denied the employee’s motion for summary adjudication on the PAGA claim, and subsequently granted the employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the arbitration resolved the issue of whether the employee was an “aggrieved employee” with standing under PAGA.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The court held that the arbitration agreement was not illusory, that the arbitrator’s findings precluded the employee from maintaining PAGA standing, and that the employer’s commission plan did not violate the cited Labor Code provisions. The judgment in favor of the employer was affirmed. View "Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc." on Justia Law

A former participant in a Zen Buddhist center’s residential training programs asserted wage-and-hour claims against the center and two of its leaders, arguing he was owed various wages and penalties for work performed during his time in the center’s programs. The center operates multiple facilities, offers residential programs, and generates income from guest activities and commercial events. The plaintiff undertook tasks such as guesthouse cleaning, kitchen work, gardening, and guest cooking, receiving modest stipends and room and board. After leaving the center, he filed his claims, alleging unpaid minimum and overtime wages and other statutory violations.The Labor Commissioner held in favor of the plaintiff and found the center, as well as the two individual leaders, liable for significant amounts. The center and the individuals appealed to the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the individual appeals on the ground that only the center, not the individuals, was required to post an appeal bond. The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the “ministerial exception” of the First Amendment barred the plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims due to the religious nature of the organization and the plaintiff’s role as a minister.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reversed the summary judgment. The court held that the ministerial exception does not categorically bar wage-and-hour claims by ministers against religious organizations in the absence of evidence that adjudicating the claims would require resolving ecclesiastical questions or interfere with religious autonomy. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the individual appeals, holding that only the employer (the center) was required to post the statutory undertaking, not the individual leaders. The judgment was thus reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Ehrenkranz v. S.F. Zen Center" on Justia Law

The case centers on a challenge to a provision in the Los Angeles Administrative Code, section 8.33, which grants the mayor special powers upon declaring a “local housing and/or homelessness emergency.” In July 2023, the mayor declared such an emergency, and the city council subsequently renewed it. The emergency declaration was later lifted in November 2025. During the period the declaration was in place, Fix the City, Inc. contended that section 8.33 was invalid because it conflicted with the California Emergency Services Act (CESA) and another provision in the city’s code, arguing that the city had acted illegally during the emergency.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed Fix the City’s claims for writ and declaratory relief, which sought to vacate the emergency declaration and any resulting directives, as well as a declaration that section 8.33 was void for conflicting with CESA and local law. The city responded with a demurrer, asserting that section 8.33 was a proper exercise of municipal authority and did not conflict with CESA or the city’s own code. The superior court agreed, finding that CESA did not apply to charter cities unless there was a clear legislative directive, and that section 8.33 was not inconsistent with other city code provisions. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and Fix the City appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court held that CESA does not preempt section 8.33 because the two do not conflict; section 8.33 is a valid exercise of the city’s home rule powers over municipal affairs. Additionally, section 8.33 did not violate other provisions of the city’s administrative code. The denial of leave to amend was also upheld. View "Fix the City, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Several members of a family brought suit against a court-appointed receiver and his company, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The dispute arose when the State of California, in the course of a criminal insurance fraud prosecution against one of the plaintiffs, obtained a court order freezing certain assets and appointing the receiver to manage them. The court later ordered the receiver to liquidate specified stock holdings "as soon as practicable." The plaintiffs alleged that the receiver failed to do so, resulting in a significant loss in the value of the accounts during the period before he was replaced by a successor. They claimed damages of over $1.1 million due to the alleged failure to comply with the liquidation order.After the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Superior Court of Orange County, the defendants responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the claims arose from protected conduct and that the receiver was immune from liability under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the claims were based on acts performed in the receiver’s official capacity and that plaintiffs failed to show a probability of prevailing because the receiver’s conduct was protected by both the litigation privilege and quasi-judicial immunity.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that a court-appointed receiver is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary acts and decisions made in that capacity. The court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims arose from the receiver’s exercise of discretion regarding when liquidation was "practicable," and such discretionary conduct is protected. Because the claims were subject to anti-SLAPP procedures and the plaintiffs failed to establish minimal merit, the appellate court affirmed the order striking the complaint. The court also rejected arguments based on statutory immunities for public employees, clarifying its decision was grounded in common law quasi-judicial immunity. View "Semaan v. Mosier" on Justia Law