Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. (CAG) filed two lawsuits under Proposition 65 against Walmart Inc. and Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC (collectively, Walmart), alleging that Walmart failed to warn consumers about products containing chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Michael Marcus, CAG’s Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, purchased the products online as a corporate agent for CAG. During the purchase process, Marcus agreed to Walmart’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration clause.In the Alameda County Superior Court, Walmart filed petitions to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement Marcus accepted. The trial court denied Walmart’s petitions, concluding that Walmart failed to prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate Proposition 65 claims, as the arbitration agreement only addressed the rights of the individual consumer and did not preclude an action brought by the state.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate a Proposition 65 claim against a seller of consumer products simply because an agent of the plaintiff previously agreed to arbitrate disputes with the seller when purchasing the products online. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s agent was not acting on behalf of the state, the real party in interest, when purchasing the products, and thus could not bind the state to arbitration. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s orders denying Walmart’s petitions to compel arbitration, as no agreement to arbitrate the Proposition 65 claims was formed. View "Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Steve Rogers filed a lawsuit against the City of Redlands, alleging that the rates for the City’s solid waste collection included a surcharge for a City program to repair roads, which he claimed violated Vehicle Code section 9400.8. The trial was bifurcated into two phases. In phase one, the trial court determined that section 9400.8 was violated. In phase two, the court ruled that refunds were limited to those who paid under protest pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 5472. Both the City and Rogers appealed these rulings.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County initially reviewed the case. In phase one, the court found that the surcharge for the City’s pavement accelerated repair implementation strategy (PARIS) program constituted a charge for the privilege of using the City’s streets, thus violating section 9400.8. In phase two, the court concluded that Health and Safety Code section 5472 limited refunds to those who paid under protest, denying Rogers the retrospective remedies he sought.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings. It agreed that the surcharge for the PARIS program was indeed a charge for the privilege of using the City’s streets, prohibited by section 9400.8. The court also upheld the trial court’s application of Health and Safety Code section 5472, which limited refunds to those who paid under protest. The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s decisions and affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "Rogers v. City of Redlands" on Justia Law

Daniel Bray pleaded no contest to possession of child pornography. The trial court sentenced him to two years of formal probation with several conditions, including restrictions on Internet use, dating or socializing with individuals who have custody of minors, and prohibitions on possessing or frequenting places with pornography. Bray challenged these conditions as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.The Santa Clara County Superior Court imposed these conditions, and Bray objected to the conditions regarding Internet use, dating and socializing, and pornography. The trial court overruled his objections, finding the conditions reasonable and related to the offense. Bray then appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the Internet use restriction was overbroad, as it unduly burdened Bray's ability to perform daily tasks and maintain employment. The court also found the condition on dating and socializing overbroad, as it infringed on Bray's right to freedom of association without being closely tailored to the goal of protecting minors. Additionally, the court agreed with the Attorney General's concession that the conditions regarding pornography were unconstitutionally vague and needed modification.The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court to strike or modify the conditions on Internet use, dating and socializing, and pornography to ensure they are narrowly tailored and specific. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "People v. Bray" on Justia Law

Armani Miller appealed the trial court's denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. In August 2020, Miller pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter with a firearm use enhancement and was sentenced to 16 years in state prison. In May 2023, he filed a petition for resentencing, arguing that he could not be convicted of murder based on changes to the felony-murder rule effective January 1, 2019, and subsequent cases recognizing youth as a factor in determining reckless indifference to human life.The Alameda County Superior Court denied Miller's petition, finding he failed to make a prima facie case for relief. The court reasoned that Miller's plea and conviction occurred after the felony-murder rule was amended, and he could not show he could not be convicted of murder due to changes effective January 1, 2019.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that Miller could not establish a prima facie case for relief because the amended information against him was filed after the felony-murder rule was amended by Senate Bill 1437. Therefore, the prosecution was precluded from proceeding under the old, invalid theory of felony murder. The court concluded that Miller was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6, subdivision (a)(1), as the charging document did not allow the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder that imputed malice based solely on his participation in the crime. The order denying Miller's petition for resentencing was affirmed. View "People v. Miller" on Justia Law

The City of Oakland entered into agreements with Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC (OBOT) to develop a bulk cargo shipping terminal at the former Oakland Army Base, including a 66-year Ground Lease. Amid public backlash over potential coal transportation, the City moved to block coal, leading to extensive litigation. The City terminated OBOT’s Ground Lease, claiming OBOT failed to meet the Initial Milestone Date for construction. OBOT and its subtenant, Oakland Global Rail Enterprise (OGRE), sued the City for breach of the Ground Lease, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and sought declaratory relief, alleging the City’s actions made it impossible for OBOT to meet the milestone and triggered a force majeure provision.The Alameda County Superior Court, after a bifurcated bench trial, found the City liable for breaching the Ground Lease and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court issued a detailed statement of decision, highlighting the City’s failure to cooperate, its obstructionist actions, and its bad faith efforts to terminate the lease. The court awarded OBOT attorney fees and costs.The City appealed to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, arguing that the trial court misinterpreted the force majeure provision, improperly applied the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, erroneously declined to apply claim preclusion, and improperly entered judgment for OGRE. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and orders, concluding that the City’s arguments lacked merit. The court held that the City’s actions constituted force majeure events, excusing OBOT’s performance delays, and that the City breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by obstructing OBOT’s efforts to develop the terminal. The court also found that claim preclusion did not apply as the federal case involved different issues and contracts. View "Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

In 2020, allegations emerged that certain officers in the Vallejo Police Department were bending the points of their badges after using potentially lethal force. The department hired an independent investigator to look into these claims but did not release the investigation's findings. The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU) requested records related to the investigation under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The department released some records but withheld the investigative report, claiming it was a confidential personnel record.The ACLU filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Solano County Superior Court, challenging the department's response. The court ordered the disclosure of parts of the investigative report and related materials, with redactions to protect the identities of officers, witnesses, and their families. Both parties sought writ review of this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the documents sought by the ACLU were not confidential personnel records but were subject to public disclosure under section 832.7, subdivision (b) of the Penal Code. This section pertains to records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of incidents involving the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer. The court also found that the redaction of officer names could not be sustained on the grounds relied upon by the superior court. However, due to the extensive volume of potentially disclosable materials and minimal briefing on redaction issues, the court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding redactions. View "City of Vallejo v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs' mother was killed when a commercial truck rear-ended her car at a red light. The plaintiffs sued the truck manufacturer, Daimler Trucks North America LLC, alleging design defect and negligent design claims. They argued that Daimler Trucks should be held liable for their mother's death because it failed to equip the truck with a collision avoidance system, Detroit Assurance 4.0, which could have prevented the accident. This system warns drivers of collision risks and can autonomously stop the truck if the driver fails to act. Daimler Trucks included this system in some, but not all, of its trucks.The Superior Court of Butte County granted summary judgment in favor of Daimler Trucks, concluding that the plaintiffs' claims failed as a matter of law. The court found that the truck driver, not the truck's design, was the proximate cause of the accident and that Daimler Trucks owed no duty to install the collision avoidance system.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that proximate cause should be a question for the jury, as a single injury can have multiple proximate causes. The court also determined that manufacturers have a general duty to install reasonable safety devices and that this duty extends to collision avoidance systems. The court rejected the trial court's conclusion that Daimler Trucks owed no duty of care and found that the plaintiffs' evidence supported the claim that the truck's design was a proximate cause of the accident.The appellate court held that Daimler Trucks must exercise due care when choosing whether to install collision avoidance systems and that the issue of whether Daimler Trucks breached that duty was outside the scope of the appeal. The court reversed the trial court's judgment against the plaintiffs and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ortiz v. Daimler Truck North America LLC" on Justia Law

Sheila Prato, the plaintiff, and her company, Prato Properties, LLC, filed a civil complaint against Thomas John Gioia and Lee & Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the Lee Firm) for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with contract. The case was dismissed without prejudice due to the plaintiffs' failure to appear at trial. At the time of the trial, Prato's attorney, Timothy McFarlin, had been rendered inactive and ineligible to practice law by the State Bar of California due to pending disciplinary proceedings. Prato was unaware of her attorney's status, but the defendants and their counsel were aware and did not inform her or the court.The Superior Court of Orange County dismissed the case without prejudice and subsequently awarded over $70,000 in attorney fees against Prato and her company. The trial court granted the defendants' motions for attorney fees despite Prato's opposition, which argued that the defendants failed to provide the required notice under section 286 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that a party whose attorney has been removed or suspended must be given written notice to appoint another attorney or appear in person before further proceedings can be taken against them.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the defendants' counsel failed to provide the required notice under section 286 before the trial, which prejudiced Prato. The court held that an attorney who has been rendered inactive and ineligible to practice law meets the definition of an attorney who has been "removed or suspended" for purposes of section 286. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the defendants without considering the lack of notice and the circumstances surrounding Prato's unrepresented status.The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider the defendants' motions for attorney fees in light of section 286. View "Prato v. Gioia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former tenants of the defendant, filed a complaint against their landlord, alleging various breaches and violations related to their tenancies. In response, the defendant filed two unlawful detainer actions against the plaintiffs for nonpayment of rent. These actions were later dismissed without prejudice. Subsequently, a jury found the defendant liable for certain claims, and the plaintiffs filed a new complaint, including a claim for malicious prosecution based on the unlawful detainer actions.The San Francisco Superior Court consolidated the cases and, after a bench trial, found in favor of the plaintiffs on their malicious prosecution claim. The court concluded that the defendant lacked probable cause to file the unlawful detainer actions and rejected the defendant's advice of counsel defense, determining that she did not rely on legal advice in good faith. The court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the defendant had asserted a valid advice of counsel defense. The defendant had consulted an attorney, disclosed all relevant facts, and acted on the attorney's advice in good faith. The court determined that the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to prove the attorney's competence and in shifting the burden of the attorney's legal research onto the defendant. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter a judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendant. The court declined to award costs as the respondents did not appear in the appeal. View "Ceron v. Liu" on Justia Law

The People initiated a criminal prosecution against Diana Maria Teran, alleging she misused information obtained during her employment with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) while working for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Teran was charged with violations of Penal Code section 502, subdivision (c)(2), which criminalizes unauthorized access and use of data from a computer system. The charges were based on Teran’s alleged use of data related to disciplinary proceedings of sheriff’s deputies, which she accessed during her tenure at LASD and later shared with a colleague at the District Attorney’s Office.The Los Angeles County Superior Court held Teran to answer on six counts after a preliminary hearing, finding sufficient evidence that she accessed the deputies' personnel records through LASD’s Performance Recording and Monitoring System (PRMS) and used this data without permission. The court rejected Teran’s argument that she was exempt from prosecution under the statute for acting within the scope of lawful employment and denied her motion to dismiss the charges under section 995. Teran then filed a petition for writ of prohibition.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and granted Teran’s petition. The court held that section 502(c)(2) does not apply to the use of purely public court records, even if those records were accessed from a computer system without permission. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the statute was to prevent hacking and tampering with computer systems, not to criminalize the sharing of public information. Consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the charges against Teran and unsealed certain exhibits related to the case. View "Teran v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law