Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Bettie Blauser filed an appeal referencing a purported judgment of dismissal, which was actually an unsigned minute order from the final day of a jury trial. The minute order indicated that the court granted a motion for nonsuit regarding the First Amended Complaint and dismissed the First Amended Cross-Complaint without prejudice upon the cross-complainant's request.The Superior Court of Orange County issued the minute order, but it was not labeled as a judgment nor did it purport to enter judgment. The court invited the parties to brief the appealability of the order, raising concerns that the order was not appealable. The appellant was also invited to obtain a judgment of dismissal from the trial court to proceed with the appeal. However, the appellant filed a notice of entry of judgment or order, attaching the same minute order with the trial court's signature and the phrase "it is so ordered" added.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and determined that the signed minute order was still not an appealable judgment. The court emphasized that an appealable order or judgment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal. The court cited the case Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale, which highlighted the necessity of a document identified as a "judgment" to trigger an appeal. The court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, allowing the appellant to file a notice of appeal from the judgment once it is properly entered by the trial court. The court urged trial courts to enter separate, signed documents clearly labeled as judgments or orders of dismissal to avoid confusion and ensure clarity for parties and attorneys. View "Blauser v. Dubin" on Justia Law

In March 2011, Prentice Robinson was indicted on multiple felony charges, including attempted murder, for crimes committed between January and February 2011. Robinson pleaded no contest to several charges, including attempted murder, and admitted to using a firearm during the crime. He was sentenced to 22 years in prison. In January 2022, Robinson filed a petition for resentencing, which was denied by the trial court. Robinson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by considering grand jury testimony, which he claimed was inadmissible hearsay.The Superior Court of San Joaquin County initially handled the case, where Robinson pleaded no contest and was sentenced. In 2022, Robinson sought resentencing, but the trial court denied his petition after considering grand jury transcripts. Robinson contended that the grand jury testimony should not have been considered, as it constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated his Sixth Amendment rights.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the grand jury testimony was admissible under section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3), which allows for the consideration of evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial if it remains admissible under current law. The court found that the grand jury proceedings were analogous to preliminary hearings and thus fell within the scope of "any prior hearing." The court also determined that Robinson's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated, as the section 1172.6 hearing is a postconviction collateral proceeding, not a new criminal prosecution, and thus does not afford the same constitutional protections.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the grand jury testimony was properly considered and that Robinson's due process rights were not violated. View "P. v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Best Development Group, LLC proposed to develop a Grocery Outlet store in King City. The King City Planning Commission approved the project, determining it was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the class 32 categorical exemption for infill development. Efrain Aguilera appealed this decision to the King City Council, which denied the appeal and upheld the exemption. Aguilera and Working Families of Monterey County then filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the class 32 exemption did not apply because the project was not in an urbanized area and the environmental assessment was inadequate.The Monterey County Superior Court denied the petition, ruling that the class 32 exemption did not require the project to be in an urbanized area as defined by CEQA and that substantial evidence supported the City’s determination that the project met the exemption criteria. The court also found that the City was not required to conduct a formal environmental review.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the terms “infill development” and “substantially surrounded by urban uses” in CEQA Guidelines section 15332 should not be interpreted using the statutory definitions of “infill site,” “urbanized area,” and “qualified urban uses” from other sections of CEQA. The court found that the regulatory intent was to reduce sprawl by exempting development in already developed areas, typically but not exclusively in urban areas. The court also determined that substantial evidence supported the City’s finding that the project site was substantially surrounded by urban uses, based on the environmental assessment and aerial photographs.The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, upholding the application of the class 32 exemption and ruling that no further CEQA compliance was required. View "Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Com." on Justia Law

Allison Littlefield filed a verified petition against her brothers, Scott and David Littlefield, and her aunt, Denise Sobel, who are co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust. The petition sought their removal as co-trustees, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and the Trust, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief. Allison claimed that the appellants misused Trust funds, concealed information, converted her personal property, restricted her use of the Ranch, and failed to address misconduct by an employee, Stacey Limbada, who allegedly harassed Allison and her husband.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the appellants' special motion to strike the petition under California's anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the appellants failed to show that Allison's petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison's request for attorney's fees, finding that the motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing that the petition was based on protected activity. The court noted that the appellants' motion failed to identify specific allegations of protected activity and improperly sought to strike the entire petition or all causes of action without distinguishing between protected and unprotected conduct.However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Allison's request for attorney's fees, finding that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The court held that any reasonable attorney would agree that the motion was totally devoid of merit, as it did not demonstrate that the petition sought to impose liability based on protected activity. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney's fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law

The case involves the San Diego City Attorney filing a complaint against Experian Data Corp. for violating the unfair competition law (UCL) by failing to promptly notify consumers of a data breach as required by Civil Code section 1798.82(a). The City Attorney sought civil penalties and injunctive relief. The UCL claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitations, and the key issue is whether the discovery rule can delay the accrual of this non-fraud civil enforcement action.The Superior Court of Orange County initially overruled Experian's demurrer, which argued the complaint was time-barred. The court found the complaint did not show on its face that the UCL claim accrued before March 6, 2014. However, the court later granted Experian's motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to civil penalties, concluding the discovery rule did not apply to the UCL claim because it was a non-fraud claim and an enforcement action seeking civil penalties. The court also denied the City Attorney's motion for reconsideration and motion to file a Third Amended Complaint.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the discovery rule can apply to delay the accrual of the UCL claim. The court found that the nature of the claim, the enforcement action seeking civil penalties, and the involvement of a governmental entity did not preclude the application of the discovery rule. The court noted that the discovery rule has been applied to various types of claims, including those involving civil penalties and enforcement actions by governmental entities.The appellate court reversed the trial court's orders granting Experian's motion in limine and denying reconsideration. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the application of the discovery rule and determine when the UCL claim accrued based on the actual or constructive knowledge of the relevant actors. The trial court was also directed to reconsider the City Attorney's request to file a Third Amended Complaint. View "People v. Experian Data Corp." on Justia Law

A vintner challenged the County of Los Angeles's decision to ban new vineyards in the Santa Monica Mountains North Area. The area is largely rural, with a small portion used for agriculture, including vineyards. The County had previously regulated vineyards through a 2015 ordinance requiring conditional use permits and development standards. In 2016, the County initiated a comprehensive update to the North Area Plan and Community Standards District, which required an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The draft EIR proposed continued regulation of vineyards but did not include a ban. After public comments, the final EIR maintained this approach. However, the County Board of Supervisors ultimately decided to ban new vineyards entirely when they approved the project in 2021. The vintner argued that this change rendered the EIR's project description unstable and required recirculation for further public comment.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the vintner's petition for a writ of mandate, finding no CEQA violation. The vintner appealed, arguing that the vineyard ban fundamentally altered the project and violated Government Code section 65857 by not referring the modification back to the planning commission.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the vineyard ban did not alter the nature or main features of the project, thus not destabilizing the project description in the EIR. The court also found that the vintner failed to demonstrate prejudice from the County's procedural error under Government Code section 65857, as there was no evidence that a different outcome was probable if the planning commission had reconsidered the ban. View "Gooden v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The Comedy Store, a stand-up comedy venue in Los Angeles, was forced to close for over a year due to COVID-19 restrictions. In July 2021, the Store hired Moss Adams LLP, an accounting firm, to help apply for a Shuttered Venue Operator Grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration. The parties signed an agreement that included a Washington choice of law provision and a forum selection clause mandating disputes be resolved in Washington state courts, along with a predispute jury trial waiver. The Store alleged Moss Adams failed to inform it of the grant program's impending expiration, causing it to miss the application deadline and lose an $8.5 million grant.The Store initially filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Los Angeles, but the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Store then refiled in the Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting claims including gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Moss Adams moved to dismiss or stay the action based on the forum selection clause. The trial court granted the motion, contingent on Moss Adams stipulating that the Store could exercise its right to a jury trial in Washington. Moss Adams provided such a stipulation, and the trial court signed an order affirming the Store's right to a jury trial in Washington.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred by not properly applying the reversed burden of proof, which required Moss Adams to show that litigating in Washington would not diminish the Store's unwaivable right to a jury trial. The appellate court concluded that Moss Adams did not meet this burden, as Washington courts have enforced predispute jury waivers, and the stipulation offered by Moss Adams was not a binding modification of the agreement. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded with instructions to deny Moss Adams's motion to dismiss or stay the action. View "The Comedy Store v. Moss Adams LLP" on Justia Law

Silvia Villareal created a revocable living trust in 2005, which she amended twice. The 2018 restatement of the trust, prepared with an attorney, provided that her three children, Leticia Linzer, Arturo Villareal, and Sonia Godoy, would each receive a one-third interest in her home upon her death. In 2019, Silvia amended the trust again, without an attorney, to state that her children could only sell their shares to each other for $100,000, aiming to keep the home within the family. After Silvia's death, Arturo and Sonia petitioned the probate court to declare the 2019 amendment void, arguing it unreasonably restrained their ability to sell their interests.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled in favor of Arturo and Sonia, determining that the 2019 amendment imposed an unreasonable restraint on alienation in violation of Civil Code section 711. The court declared the amendment void and upheld the 2018 restatement as the operative trust document. Leticia, the trustee, objected, arguing that section 711 did not apply to testamentary gifts and that the 2019 amendment did not impose an unreasonable restraint.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the probate court's decision, holding that section 711 applies to testamentary instruments and that the 2019 amendment imposed an unreasonable restraint on alienation. The court found that the amendment's restrictions on selling the property only to siblings for a fixed price were unreasonable and void. The court also rejected Leticia's argument that the 2019 amendment created a new testamentary trust, concluding that Silvia intended to add to the existing trust rather than create a new one. The court affirmed the probate court's order, maintaining the 2018 restatement as the operative trust document. View "Godoy v. Linzner" on Justia Law

LCPFV, LLC owned a warehouse with a faulty sewer pipe. After experiencing toilet backups, LCPFV hired Rapid Plumbing to fix the issue for $47,883.40. Rapid's work was unsatisfactory, leading LCPFV to hire another plumber for $44,077 to correct the problem. LCPFV sued Rapid Plumbing, which initially appeared in court but later defaulted. LCPFV sought a default judgment of $1,081,263.80, including attorney fees and punitive damages. The trial court awarded a default judgment of $120,319.22, significantly less than LCPFV's demand, and also awarded $11,852.90 in sanctions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, presided over by Judge Mark V. Mooney, reviewed the case. The court scrutinized LCPFV's default judgment package and found the requested amount excessive. The court emphasized its role as a gatekeeper in default judgment cases, ensuring that only appropriate claims are granted. The court rejected LCPFV's use of requests for admissions obtained after Rapid Plumbing had ceased participating in the case, citing a lack of candor and evidentiary value.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, agreeing that the trial court acted within its discretion in rejecting the inflated default judgment request. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to award $120,319.22, including $91,960.40 for breach of contract and $4,948.46 in attorney fees, rejecting the fraud and punitive damages claims. The court also affirmed the sanctions award and the decision to grant prejudgment interest from the date of the lawsuit filing, not from the date of payment to Rapid Plumbing. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings and emphasized the importance of judicial vigilance in default judgment cases. View "LCPFV v. Somatdary" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a beneficiary of the Carolyn Patricia Young Family Trust, alleged that defendants, the trust protector and trustee, were conspiring to withhold trust funds improperly. The alleged conspiracy aimed to preserve assets for the trustee, who is also a residuary beneficiary. Plaintiff sought an ex parte application to suspend the defendants' powers and appoint an interim trustee. The Superior Court of Orange County granted the application, suspending the defendants' powers, appointing an interim trustee, requiring a bond, setting a review hearing, and prohibiting the interim trustee from using trust assets for compensation without prior court authorization.Defendants appealed the order. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the order was not appealable. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the appealability of the order. The court held that orders suspending trustees and appointing interim trustees in probate court are not directly appealable. The court emphasized that such orders are provisional and not final, aligning with the broader policy against piecemeal appeals.The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that neither Probate Code section 1300 nor section 1304 provided a basis for appealability. The court also found that defendants lacked standing to appeal the portions of the order imposing a bond requirement and prohibiting the use of trust assets for compensation without prior court authorization. Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions, despite concerns about defendants' counsel's conduct, which the court found troubling but not sufficient to warrant sanctions in this instance. View "Young v. Hartford" on Justia Law