Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Several individuals who were employed by the City and County of San Francisco and were at least 40 years old when hired brought a class action lawsuit alleging that the City’s method for calculating disability retirement benefits under its retirement system discriminated against employees based on age. The system employs two formulas; Formula 1 is used if it yields a benefit exceeding a percentage threshold, while Formula 2 is used if the threshold is not met. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2, which imputes years of service until age 60, resulted in lower benefits for those who entered the retirement system at age 40 or older, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).After initial proceedings in the San Francisco City and County Superior Court—including a demurrer sustained on statute of limitations grounds and subsequent reversal by the Court of Appeal—the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting FEHA claims for disparate treatment and disparate impact, as well as claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and equal protection violations. The trial court certified a class and denied summary judgment due to triable issues of fact. A bench trial followed, where both parties presented expert testimony on whether Formula 2 disparately impacted older employees.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s findings. It affirmed the judgment, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not by age, and that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient as it was based on hypothetical calculations rather than actual data. The trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint after trial was also upheld, as any alleged error was not reversible on the record. The judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

A law enforcement agency served an electronic service provider with a search warrant for data associated with an email account belonging to a university graduate student under investigation for rape. The warrant was accompanied by a nondisclosure order (NDO) prohibiting the provider from notifying the student or anyone at the university about the warrant for 90 days. The provider did not contest the restriction against notifying the account holder but sought permission to inform a trusted contact at the university about the warrant's existence, citing concerns under the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA) and the First Amendment.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed a sealed affidavit and found that several statutory criteria for “adverse results” under CalECPA were present, justifying the NDO. When the provider requested to modify the order to allow notification of a university contact, the court considered the proposal but ultimately declined after law enforcement objected, noting the court lacked jurisdiction over the university and could not ensure compliance with the NDO. The order was extended once and later lifted after the target was arrested. The provider’s initial petition for writ of mandate was summarily denied by the California Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court then granted review and transferred the matter back to the appellate court for further consideration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and held that the trial court made the required findings under CalECPA before issuing the NDO and that the NDO did not violate the provider’s First Amendment rights. The court found the NDO served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation. The petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Jessica Garcia and other former employees brought a class action against The Merchant of Tennis, Inc., alleging failure to pay wages and other employment violations under California and federal law. In response, Merchant entered into approximately 954 individual settlement agreements (ISAs) with current and former employees, providing cash payments in exchange for waivers of their claims. Garcia, who had not signed an ISA, sought class certification and also moved to invalidate the ISAs, arguing that Merchant had obtained them through fraud and coercion, such as misrepresenting the scope of litigation and the claims being released.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County partially granted Garcia’s motion, finding the ISAs voidable at the election of each settling putative class member. The court ordered that curative notices be sent to those who had signed ISAs, allowing them to revoke their agreements and join the class action. However, the parties could not agree on the notice’s language, specifically whether it should inform class members that they might be required to repay the settlement amount if Merchant prevailed in the action. The trial court ruled that the notice did not need to include such repayment language, reasoning that federal cases suggested repayment was not required before joining the suit and that repayment could be treated as an offset to any judgment.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two reviewed the trial court’s order. It held that under California Civil Code sections 1689, 1691, and 1693, class members who rescind their ISAs may be required to repay Merchant the consideration received if Merchant prevails, but such repayment can be delayed until the conclusion of litigation. The trial court retains discretion to adjust equities between the parties at judgment. The writ of mandate was granted, directing the trial court to reconsider the curative notice in accordance with these principles. View "The Merchant of Tennis v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

The case concerns the approval of the Giovannioni Logistics Center Project, a large warehouse development in the City of American Canyon, California. The project requires American Canyon to certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically addressing water supply issues since the city relies on outside sources, including water purchased from the neighboring City of Vallejo under a longstanding agreement. Vallejo’s water comes from the State Water Project and its own appropriative water right (License 7848). Vallejo objected to the EIR, asserting that it did not adequately disclose limitations on water availability, including place of use restrictions on License 7848 and ongoing contract litigation between the cities.Vallejo filed a petition for writ of mandate in Napa County Superior Court, later transferred to Sacramento Superior Court, contending that the EIR failed to meet CEQA and Water Code requirements regarding water supply disclosures and contingency planning. The trial court reviewed Vallejo’s arguments, which included claims that the EIR did not account for actual water delivered, failed to assess legal restrictions on water use, neglected the implications of curtailments during drought, and ignored the impact of contract disputes. After argument, the trial court denied Vallejo’s petition and entered judgment for American Canyon and the project developer, Buzz Oates LLC.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It held that the EIR and water supply assessment complied with CEQA and the Water Code. The court found that the EIR provided sufficient detail about water supply sources and reliability, reasonably addressed foreseeable uncertainties, and did not require more specific disclosures or contingency planning absent evidence of insufficient supply. The court also concluded that any technical omissions were harmless and that Vallejo failed to demonstrate prejudice or a legal deficiency in the environmental review process. View "City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon" on Justia Law

The petitioner is an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence of 45 years to life for first degree murder, who challenged the timing of his initial youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051. His main contention was that, under regulations adopted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) following Proposition 57 and Assembly Bill 965, only educational merit credits are counted toward advancing his youth parole eligible date (YPED), whereas a wider range of credits—including good conduct, milestone completion, rehabilitative achievement, and extraordinary conduct credits—may be applied to advance the minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for other indeterminately sentenced inmates. The petitioner claimed this distinction deprived him of thousands of days of credit and delayed his parole hearing compared to similarly situated inmates.Previously, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District summarily denied the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. The California Supreme Court then granted review, transferring the case back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to issue an order to show cause and reconsider the petitioner’s claims.Upon review, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District considered both statutory and constitutional arguments, including equal protection and due process claims. The court applied rational basis review to the equal protection claim, emphasizing the deferential standard and the need for a rational relationship between the regulatory distinction and a legitimate state interest. The court concluded that limiting credits for youth offender parole hearings to educational merit credits serves administrative and operational needs, promoting certainty and stability in scheduling, and is rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives. The court found no merit to the statutory, equal protection, or due process challenges and denied habeas corpus relief, discharging the petition. View "In re Thai" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a collector and customer service representative in California, and upon being hired, electronically signed an arbitration agreement. The agreement broadly required arbitration for disputes relating to employment or termination, and covered claims based on federal, state, or local laws, including the California Labor Code. It also expressly prohibited class or collective adjudication and stated that it “shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and, to the extent permitted by such Act, the laws of the State of California.” In 2023, the plaintiff sued the defendant, asserting both individual and class claims for alleged violations of labor and business statutes.After the complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the defendant moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims and to dismiss the class claims. The defendant submitted evidence that it is a Delaware corporation, previously had offices in Washington, and sourced materials from outside California. The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not apply because her employment was exclusively within California and no evidence showed the agreement involved interstate commerce. The trial court found the arbitration agreement valid, held that the FAA applied based on the agreement’s express terms and supporting evidence, and dismissed the class claims per the agreement’s prohibition.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, considered whether the trial court correctly found the FAA governed the arbitration agreement. The appellate court held that the FAA applies because the parties expressly agreed in the contract to be governed by the Act, regardless of whether the underlying transaction actually involved interstate commerce. The court affirmed the order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims and dismissing the class claims. The defendant was awarded costs on appeal. View "Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Admin. Services" on Justia Law

Daquon Ray Washington was charged in 2019 with first degree burglary with a person present and grand theft of an automobile. The information alleged prior convictions and jail terms for burglary and receiving stolen property, making him subject to sentence enhancements under several provisions of the Penal Code, including two one-year enhancements under then-section 667.5(b). Washington pleaded no contest and admitted the prior convictions. He was sentenced to eight years in state prison, with the section 667.5(b) enhancements imposed but stayed.Following legislative amendments, Penal Code section 1172.75 (formerly section 1171.1) retroactively invalidated most enhancements imposed under section 667.5(b), except for those involving sexually violent offenses. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identified Washington as serving a sentence including an invalid enhancement. In April 2024, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied resentencing, concluding that Washington was ineligible because the enhancements were stayed at sentencing. While Washington’s appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court in People v. Rhodius clarified that section 1172.75 applies to invalid enhancements regardless of whether they were stayed or executed, mandating resentencing if such enhancements were imposed.While Washington’s appeal was pending, he was released on parole. The People argued in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, that release on parole terminated eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.75. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that eligibility for resentencing does not require the defendant to remain incarcerated until the resentencing takes place. Once identified by CDCR as eligible, subsequent release on parole does not preclude relief; resentencing can afford practical benefits, such as shortening the parole term. The appellate court reversed the superior court’s denial of resentencing and remanded for further proceedings consistent with section 1172.75. View "People v. Washington" on Justia Law

The defendant was held alone in a cell at the Tuolumne County jail when a deputy observed him striking the cell window with a broom handle, causing it to crack extensively and necessitate replacement. Evidence at trial established that the actual cost of the window was $245.47, with an additional $161.97 for installation, totaling $407.44 in damages. The prosecution charged the defendant with felony vandalism for damages over $400 and with damaging jail property. The jury found the defendant guilty on both counts and determined the damage exceeded $400.After the trial in the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, the defendant was sentenced to six years on the felony vandalism conviction, with a concurrent six-month sentence on the jail property charge that was stayed. The court ordered victim restitution in the amount of $1,980.83, based on a probation report estimate rather than the trial evidence. The prosecutor noted errors in the probation report regarding the amount and classification of damages for the jail property charge, leading to its amendment to reflect a misdemeanor. The defendant appealed, arguing the felony conviction and restitution order were unsupported by substantial evidence, and, in supplemental briefing, that a more specific statute governed his conduct.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It found substantial evidence supported the damages calculation for felony vandalism but held that prosecution under the general vandalism statute was precluded by the existence of a more specific statute addressing destruction of jail property. Accordingly, the court reversed the felony vandalism conviction and the restitution order, remanding the matter for resentencing under the specific statute and a new restitution hearing. The holding clarified that when a specific statute covers the conduct, prosecution under a general statute is barred, and restitution must reflect actual loss proven at trial. View "People v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

The parties in this case entered into a settlement agreement in 2005 to resolve a longstanding water rights dispute between their respective parcels, providing that future disputes would be resolved by mediation and, if necessary, binding arbitration before a retired judge with water law expertise in San Diego County. The agreement included provisions for attorney fees for the prevailing party in certain circumstances. In 2016, a new dispute arose over groundwater resources and the parties proceeded to arbitration. During the arbitration, the arbitrator withdrew after Lodge filed demands for disqualification, leaving the dispute unresolved. While the Barbanell entities sought a replacement arbitrator, Lodge initiated a separate lawsuit asserting the same claims as those in arbitration. The Barbanell entities then filed a distinct action, petitioning the Superior Court of San Diego County to appoint a new arbitrator.The Superior Court of San Diego County granted the Barbanell entities’ petition to appoint a new arbitrator and entered judgment in their favor, designating them as prevailing parties entitled to seek attorney fees. Upon subsequent motion, the court found that the settlement agreement entitled the Barbanell entities to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in obtaining the appointment of a new arbitrator, and awarded them $68,800 in fees. An amended judgment was issued to reflect this award.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed only the postjudgment award of attorney fees. It affirmed the Superior Court’s decision, holding that the Barbanell entities were prevailing parties in the discrete action to appoint an arbitrator and were entitled to attorney fees under the settlement agreement and Civil Code section 1717. The appellate court clarified that the presence of related claims pending elsewhere did not preclude a fee award for this separate, concluded action. View "Barbanell v. Lodge" on Justia Law

Mendocino Railway, a California railroad corporation, sought to acquire a 20-acre parcel in Willits, California owned by John Meyer through eminent domain. The property is adjacent to Mendocino Railway’s tracks and was intended for the construction and maintenance of rail facilities supporting ongoing and future freight and passenger operations. The company argued that, as a common carrier public utility under relevant statutes, it had the authority to exercise eminent domain for public use. The evidence at trial included testimony about the history of rail service on the line, Mendocino Railway’s acquisition and operations, including passenger excursions and more limited commuter and freight services, and the necessity of the property for expanding its rail facilities.The Mendocino County Superior Court conducted a bench trial and found that Mendocino Railway failed to qualify as a public utility entitled to exercise eminent domain. The court reasoned that the railway’s primary activity was excursion service, which does not confer public utility status, and was unconvinced by the evidence of passenger and freight services. The court further concluded that, even if Mendocino Railway had public utility status, it did not meet the statutory requirements for eminent domain, finding the primary purpose of the proposed taking to be for private business activities rather than public use. The court also found insufficient evidence regarding the project’s impacts on neighboring residents and questioned the credibility and timing of Mendocino Railway’s site plans.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Mendocino Railway met its burden of proving it was a common carrier public utility under California law, and that it satisfied the statutory requirements for eminent domain: public interest and necessity, proper planning for public good and least private injury, and necessity of the property for the project. The court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding compensation to Meyer. View "Mendocino Railway v. Meyer" on Justia Law