Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

An employee working as a prep cook at a restaurant was injured during a physical altercation with a co-worker. The altercation arose out of a workplace argument that escalated, resulting in the co-worker striking the employee and causing significant injury. The injured employee filed a workers’ compensation claim, while the employer and its insurer denied liability, asserting the “initial physical aggressor” defense under California Labor Code section 3600(a)(7), arguing that the employee was the initial physical aggressor and thus barred from recovery.The matter was tried before a Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), who heard testimony from all involved and found that the employee was the initial physical aggressor, based largely on the credibility of eyewitnesses. The WCJ denied the employee’s claim for compensation. The employee timely filed a petition for reconsideration with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Although the petition was filed and transmitted within the statutory 60-day period, the WCAB did not review it until after the deadline. The WCAB ultimately granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ’s denial, and found that the “initial physical aggressor” defense had not been proven, thus allowing the employee’s claim.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the WCAB’s order. The court held that under former section 5909 of the Labor Code, the WCAB lost jurisdiction to act on the petition for reconsideration after the 60-day statutory period elapsed, unless grounds for equitable tolling were present. The court concluded that equitable tolling was not warranted here because there was no evidence of reasonable diligence or special circumstances justifying such relief. Therefore, the court reversed the WCAB’s order and decision after reconsideration. View "Zenith Insurance Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

A murder occurred in 2014 when the victim, Justin Triplett, was shot multiple times at his apartment. Jason Johnomar Zapata became a suspect after evidence connected him to the murder weapon and ammunition. Nearly a year later, while in custody on unrelated charges, Zapata was subjected to what is known as a Perkins operation: he was placed in a holding cell with two undercover agents posing as inmates. During the operation, a law enforcement officer conducted a fake lineup and falsely told Zapata that a witness had identified him as the killer. When asked if he wanted to discuss the murder, Zapata invoked his right to counsel. Nevertheless, the deputy returned Zapata to the cell, announced to the undercover agents that Zapata would be charged with murder, and the agents subsequently questioned Zapata, eliciting an incriminating confession.At trial in the Superior Court of Riverside County, Zapata moved to suppress his statements, arguing that his Miranda rights were violated because he had invoked his right to counsel before the confession and had not waived it. The trial court denied the motion, admitted the confession into evidence, and Zapata was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. The jury did not reach a verdict on the personal firearm enhancement, but Zapata later admitted a lesser firearm use enhancement.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that when a suspect invokes the right to counsel and a known law enforcement officer actively “stimulates” a Perkins operation in a manner that amounts to custodial interrogation, any resulting incriminating statements are inadmissible under Miranda and Edwards. The court found the admission of Zapata's statements prejudicial and reversed the judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "P. v. Zapata" on Justia Law

The case concerns a father and mother with four minor children. Dependency jurisdiction was initially asserted over the children due to the father’s alcohol abuse and the mother’s failure to protect the children. After the parents entered into a stipulation, restrictions on the father’s visitation were removed, and joint custody was restored. However, a subsequent domestic violence incident involving the father led to a new dependency petition. The father was accused of slapping the mother while possibly intoxicated, which was witnessed by the eldest child. The investigation also revealed prior domestic violence calls. As a result, the children were detained from the father and released to the mother, with the father granted monitored visitation.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained allegations against the father for domestic violence and alcohol abuse, declared the children dependents, and removed them from the father’s custody. The mother was given family preservation services, while the father received enhancement services and monitored visitation. At a six-month review hearing, it was reported that the father completed a substance abuse program but continued to engage in concerning behavior, including leaving threatening voicemails, appearing intoxicated, and being physically aggressive toward the mother. The mother obtained a restraining order, and the Department of Children and Family Services recommended terminating jurisdiction with sole custody to the mother and monitored visitation for the father.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed whether the lower court erred in requiring the father to pay for a professional visitation monitor as a condition of visitation without considering his ability to pay or reasonable alternatives. The appellate court held that the juvenile court abused its discretion by not inquiring into the father’s financial ability or considering alternatives such as an unpaid monitor. The order requiring the father to pay for a professional monitor was reversed and remanded for further proceedings; the custody order was otherwise affirmed. View "In re Reyna R." on Justia Law

Two students enrolled at a private university in California during early 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic prompted widespread campus closures. In accordance with local lockdown orders, the university transitioned from in-person to online instruction in March 2020. Prior to the Fall 2020 semester, the university communicated with students about its intention to return to in-person education but made clear that such plans depended on approval from local authorities. Ultimately, the university continued remote instruction. The students remained enrolled and later graduated.The students filed suit in the Superior Court of Orange County, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices. They argued that the university had made an enforceable promise to provide in-person education, citing various university publications, course listings, policies, and statements about on-campus experiences. They sought a partial tuition refund and raised alternative claims regarding unfair or unlawful representations. The university moved for summary judgment, asserting that it had not made any specific promise to provide in-person instruction and that its statements reflected only general expectations. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the university, relying on Berlanga v. University of San Francisco and finding no triable issue of material fact regarding any misrepresentation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The court held that the university’s statements and practices did not constitute sufficiently specific enforceable promises of in-person education under California law. The court found that only specific, explicit promises are enforceable in the student-university relationship, and none were present here. The court also rejected the students’ unjust enrichment and unfair business practices claims. The judgment in favor of the university was affirmed, and the university was awarded costs on appeal. View "Grant v. Chapman University" on Justia Law

After a divorce in 1996, a father was ordered by the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court to pay both family and child support. Over the ensuing years, he failed to fully comply with the court’s orders, moved out of state and later out of the country, and was declared in contempt for his failure to pay support. Nearly two decades later, after the youngest child had reached the age of majority, the father and mother discussed resolving the outstanding child support arrearages, which, including interest, totaled approximately $545,000. The father agreed to pay half that amount, and made several payments, but when he requested that the mother sign a written accord and satisfaction releasing him from any remaining arrearages, she declined.The father then filed a request in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, seeking a ruling that there was an enforceable agreement to resolve the arrearages. The superior court denied his request, finding that the parties did not reach a final, binding agreement and that there was no bona fide dispute as to the amount owed. The court also concluded that any purported accord and satisfaction was unenforceable under California law.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the superior court’s order. The appellate court held that, consistent with California’s strong public policy, parents are precluded from contractually waiving or forgiving past due child support arrearages, even after the child has reached the age of majority and there is no longer a current support order. The court further found substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that there was no bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed, and no enforceable agreement was formed. The appellate court also rejected the father’s arguments for waiver and estoppel. The order was affirmed. View "Marriage of Allen" on Justia Law

Several plaintiffs brought suit against a court-appointed receiver and his company, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The underlying facts involve a criminal prosecution against one of the plaintiffs, Simon Semaan, for insurance fraud. In connection with the prosecution, the criminal court issued a temporary restraining order that froze certain assets and appointed the receiver to manage them. Later, the court ordered the receiver to liquidate specific stock holdings “as soon as practicable.” The receiver did not immediately liquidate the assets, citing ongoing settlement negotiations and concerns about account closure requirements. Plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the receiver’s delay, the value of the investment accounts declined, causing them over $1.1 million in damages.After the receiver was replaced, the plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty in the Superior Court of Orange County. The defendants responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing the claims arose from protected activity and that quasi-judicial immunity applied. The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion. The court found that the receiver’s conduct occurred within the scope of his appointment, that the litigation privilege applied, and that the receiver was protected by quasi-judicial immunity.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order. It held that a court-appointed receiver is protected by quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary acts and decisions performed in the course of carrying out court orders. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims arose out of the receiver’s discretionary decisions as receiver, which are constitutionally protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. Because of this immunity, the plaintiffs failed to show that their claims had the minimal merit necessary to survive an anti-SLAPP motion. The court thus affirmed the order striking the complaint. View "Semaan v. Mosier" on Justia Law

The case concerns a criminal defendant charged with kidnapping his fiancée, L.S., for ransom or extortion. At the time of the alleged offense, L.S. was under a temporary conservatorship due to a probate court’s finding that she was “gravely disabled” as defined by the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (LPS Act), and the San Bernardino County Public Guardian was appointed as her conservator. After the defendant subpoenaed L.S. to testify in his defense at the preliminary hearing, the Public Guardian moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that L.S. was incompetent to testify by virtue of the probate court’s grave disability finding.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted the motion to quash, ruling that the finding of grave disability was tantamount to a finding of incompetence to testify under Evidence Code section 701, and that the issue did not need to be relitigated. The defendant then petitioned for a writ of mandate, challenging the trial court’s legal conclusion.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that a finding of grave disability under the LPS Act does not by itself establish incompetence to testify under Evidence Code section 701. The standards for grave disability and testimonial competence are distinct, and incompetence to testify may not be presumed from a grave disability finding or an involuntary medication order. The appellate court directed the superior court to vacate its order granting the motion to quash, to enter a new order denying the motion, and to determine L.S.’s competence to testify under the correct legal standard. The previously ordered stay was vacated upon issuance of the remittitur. View "Esparza v. Super Ct." on Justia Law

A.B., a 42-year-old individual with a longstanding diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, had been receiving mental health services in San Francisco since 2008, including numerous psychiatric hospitalizations and crisis interventions. He was previously under conservatorship, which ensured compliance with medication, but historically disengaged from treatment and decompensated when conservatorship ended. In October 2023, following a psychiatric incident at home involving paranoia and disruptive behavior, A.B. was hospitalized. His mother, who provided housing, testified to his history of aggression and repeated decompensation when not medicated, stating she would not allow him to live with her absent a conservatorship and mandatory medication order.The San Francisco County Superior Court initially appointed the public conservator and imposed an involuntary medication order. After a mistrial in April 2023, the parties resolved the matter by conservatorship without a medication order, but following further decompensation, the conservator sought renewal with an involuntary medication order. At the 2025 court trial, testimony from A.B.’s mother and treating psychiatrist indicated that A.B. lacked insight into his illness, would not reliably take medication without a legal mandate, and was unable to maintain shelter independently. Although A.B. testified that he now recognized his diagnosis and would comply with medication, the court credited the testimony of his mother and psychiatrist over his own.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that A.B. was presently gravely disabled due to his mental disorder and unable to provide for his own shelter without medication, which he would not take absent a court order. The appellate court also affirmed the finding that A.B. was incompetent to give or withhold informed consent for psychotropic medication. The orders renewing the conservatorship and involuntary medication were affirmed. View "Conservatorship of A.B." on Justia Law

A jury found the defendant guilty of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle, conspiracy to commit vehicle theft, and receiving stolen property after he was observed towing a motorhome from an unoccupied property using makeshift equipment taken from the premises. He did not have permission to move either the motorhome or the equipment. The charges included allegations of prior convictions relating to vehicle theft and strike priors. The defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the priors and stipulated to one prior strike in exchange for dismissal of the other two.The Superior Court of San Diego County sentenced the defendant to six years on count one (three years, doubled for the strike), four years on count two (stayed under Penal Code section 654), and one year on count four (to run concurrently). The defendant appealed, alleging a violation of the Racial Justice Act (RJA) due to the use of a dog analogy during voir dire and closing arguments, and asserting several sentencing errors, including the procedure for priors and the application of sentences.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, held that the defendant forfeited the RJA claim by failing to object at trial and that, even if considered on the merits, the dog analogy did not constitute racially discriminatory language under section 745. The court also found sentencing errors: there were no findings on the prior convictions supporting the enhanced sentence under Penal Code section 666.5, and the defendant did not personally admit the strike prior. The court remanded the matter for resentencing to include a court trial on the qualifying prior conviction and confirmation of the strike admission, but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "P. v. Gomez" on Justia Law

The case concerns a job applicant who, after accepting an offer of employment as a sales associate at a large retailer, received an investigative consumer report as part of the onboarding process. The applicant was presented with a lengthy disclosure form that identified multiple consumer reporting agencies rather than only the one that provided her report. She alleged that the employer failed to comply with specific requirements under California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), including not identifying the agency actually conducting the investigation in a standalone document, and including extraneous information. She also claimed other technical violations related to the handling of her report.The Superior Court of San Diego County reviewed the matter after the employee brought suit for ICRAA violations. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not suffer any concrete injury or adverse employment action resulting from the alleged violations—she was hired and received the report. The trial court agreed, finding that the applicant had not shown injury, and entered judgment for the employer.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that under the plain language of ICRAA, a consumer need only show that a statutory violation occurred to have standing and to recover the statutory sum of $10,000; no further showing of injury or harm is required. The court distinguished California law from federal standards, emphasized relevant legislative history, and declined to follow interpretations requiring proof of concrete injury. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed that summary judgment be vacated. View "Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates" on Justia Law