Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

California’s net energy metering (NEM) program has, for decades, allowed utility customers with renewable energy systems to receive credit for excess electricity sent to the grid. Concerns grew that this system resulted in a substantial subsidy for NEM customers, shifting costs to non-NEM ratepayers. In 2013, the Legislature enacted a law requiring the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) to create a successor tariff that balanced the costs and benefits of customer-sited renewable energy, ensured sustainable growth, and prevented cost-shifting. After years of study and rulemaking, the Commission adopted a new tariff in 2022, fundamentally changing how credits for exported power are calculated and introducing measures aimed at equity and system sustainability.Petitioners, which included environmental and community advocacy groups, challenged the new tariff before the Commission and, after rehearing was denied, sought review in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District. The court initially affirmed the Decision, applying a highly deferential standard of review. Petitioners then sought review in the California Supreme Court, which held that the standard used was too deferential and directed the appellate court to apply the standard articulated in Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalization, which requires courts to independently assess whether the agency acted within its delegated authority and consistent with the law.On remand, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the tariff under this framework. The court concluded the Commission’s actions were within its delegated authority and that the successor tariff satisfied statutory requirements for sustainable growth, equitable treatment of disadvantaged communities, and balancing of costs and benefits. The court rejected petitioners’ arguments that the tariff failed to consider all relevant benefits or improperly disadvantaged certain groups. The court affirmed the Commission’s Decision and awarded costs to the Commission and real parties in interest. View "Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

A city-owned zoo in Alameda County is managed through a contract with a nonprofit corporation. In 2022, local voters approved an initiative, Measure Y, which imposed a parcel tax to fund zoo operations. The measure specified that tax revenue would be placed in a city fund and distributed to the “Zoo Operator” for certain uses. Measure Y identified the Conservation Society of California, the current nonprofit operator, by name and assigned it specific duties and powers related to the new tax revenue. The measure stated it would take effect if approved by a simple majority of voters and received 63.1% support.Following the election, the Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association and an individual filed a reverse validation action in the Superior Court of Alameda County, seeking to invalidate Measure Y. They argued that the measure violated article II, section 12 of the California Constitution by naming a private corporation to perform functions or have duties, and that the measure required a two-thirds supermajority to pass. The trial court sustained demurrers to the supermajority claims, finding only a simple majority was needed, and granted judgment on the pleadings as to the constitutional claims. The court concluded that any reference to the Conservation Society was either not a violation or, if so, was severable, leaving the rest of the measure valid. Judgment was entered for the city and the Conservation Society.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, found that Measure Y’s references to the Conservation Society as the “Zoo Operator” violated article II, section 12 because they assigned specific functions and duties to a named private corporation. However, the court held these references could be severed without affecting the remainder of the measure, which would remain valid. The court further held that only a simple majority vote was required for passage. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed as modified to reflect severance. View "Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two former domestic partners over the custody and visitation of a pet dog following the dissolution of their partnership. Initially, the judgment dissolving their partnership did not address the ownership or custody of pets. Two years later, one party sought shared custody and visitation of the dog, filing a formal request under California Family Code section 2605. The other party, represented by her cousin, opposed the request, citing purported legal precedents that supported considering the emotional well-being and stability of the parties in pet custody disputes.The Superior Court of San Diego County held a hearing and ultimately denied the request for shared custody and visitation. The written order, which cited the fictional cases provided by the parties, was drafted and submitted by the appellant’s own counsel and signed by the court. The order relied on these fake cases to justify denying the request, emphasizing the mental stability of the parties and the lack of a substantial relationship between the petitioner and the dog. The appellant did not object to the use of these fictitious authorities in the order at the trial court level.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that it was an abuse of discretion for the family court to rely on fictitious case authorities, but determined that the appellant had forfeited this claim by drafting and submitting the order with these citations and failing to object. The court also found that the appellant failed to provide an adequate appellate record for review of his proposed legal standard for pet custody under section 2605. The appellate court affirmed the order and imposed $5,000 in sanctions on respondent’s counsel for citing and persisting in reliance on fabricated legal authorities. View "In re Domestic Partnership of Campos & Nunoz" on Justia Law

A university student faced disciplinary action after three fellow students reported separate incidents in which, while intoxicated, he allegedly engaged in nonconsensual and increasingly violent sexual conduct. Following these reports, the student was placed on interim suspension and criminally charged with multiple felonies. The criminal proceedings included a preliminary hearing where two complainants testified under oath and were rigorously cross-examined by the student’s attorney. The criminal case concluded with a plea agreement.While the criminal case was ongoing, the university initiated its own disciplinary process. This included a multi-stage investigation and hearing pursuant to university policy. At the fact-finding hearing, the complainants chose not to testify or participate. The hearing officer relied on the prior sworn testimony from the criminal proceeding and other evidence, ultimately finding the student responsible for violating university policies with respect to two complainants. The student was expelled, and his university appeal was denied.The student then sought review in Alameda County Superior Court, arguing that he was denied due process because he could not cross-examine the complainants at the university hearing and that the university’s delay prejudiced his defense. The superior court denied his petition, finding that due process was satisfied by the opportunity for cross-examination at the criminal proceeding and that the delay was justified and not prejudicial.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the superior court’s judgment. The court held that due process does not require live cross-examination of complainants at a university disciplinary hearing when such an opportunity was provided during prior criminal proceedings, and that any procedural delay was supported by good cause and did not result in prejudice to the student. The judgment for the university was affirmed. View "Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of California" on Justia Law

A woman with a Medtronic infusion pump for fentanyl died from an overdose while hospitalized for a hernia repair. Her doctors included her pain management physician, who managed her pump, and a surgeon at a hospital. After surgery, she continued receiving fentanyl from the pump and self-administered additional doses. Hospital staff noticed changes in her mental status, but the actuator allowing self-administration was not removed. The family alleged that the managing pain doctor treated her at the hospital without proper staff privileges and failed to turn off the pump when asked.Her children filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Yuba County, initially against other medical providers, and later amended their complaints several times to add the pain management physician as a defendant, more than four years after their mother’s death. They asserted claims for professional negligence, lack of informed consent, wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and elder abuse.The Superior Court of Yuba County sustained the pain management physician’s demurrer to the fifth amended complaint without leave to amend. It found that the medical negligence claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the complaint did not sufficiently allege elder abuse. Judgment was entered for the physician, and the plaintiffs appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the judgment. The court held that the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 applied to the negligence-based claims because the alleged acts constituted “professional negligence” and did not fall within exclusions for acts outside the scope of hospital-imposed restrictions. The court also found no factual basis for tolling the statute for intentional concealment and concluded that the claims did not relate back to the original complaint against fictitiously named defendants. Finally, the court agreed that the elder abuse allegations were deficient and found no abuse of discretion in denying further leave to amend. View "Nichols v. Alghannam" on Justia Law

A mother with a longstanding history of mental illness, including diagnoses of major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder, and PTSD, became the subject of a dependency proceeding concerning her infant daughter. After giving birth, the mother lived with her sister and relied on family support to care for her child. In late 2024, the mother’s mental health deteriorated—she stopped taking her medication, experienced suicidal thoughts, and her behavior became erratic. Family members expressed concern for the mother’s stability, and the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services (the Bureau) responded to allegations of neglect. An initial home assessment found the child safe, and a safety plan was created involving the child’s maternal grandmother providing primary care while the mother addressed her mental health.The Contra Costa County Superior Court sustained allegations that the mother’s mental health issues impaired her ability to provide regular care, and ordered the child removed from her custody. The court required the mother to engage in mental health services, substance abuse assessment, and random drug testing as conditions for reunification. The Bureau’s reports indicated some efforts to prevent removal but did not provide a detailed explanation or evidence that less restrictive alternatives—such as in-home support or involvement of other family members—had been adequately considered.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the mother’s mental illness created a substantial risk of harm to her child, justifying jurisdiction. However, the appellate court found the dispositional orders removing the child from the mother’s custody unsupported by clear and convincing evidence that there were no reasonable means to protect the child short of removal, or that the Bureau made reasonable efforts to prevent removal. The appellate court affirmed the jurisdictional findings but reversed the dispositional orders and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re L.G." on Justia Law

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