Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case centers on a challenge to a provision in the Los Angeles Administrative Code, section 8.33, which grants the mayor special powers upon declaring a “local housing and/or homelessness emergency.” In July 2023, the mayor declared such an emergency, and the city council subsequently renewed it. The emergency declaration was later lifted in November 2025. During the period the declaration was in place, Fix the City, Inc. contended that section 8.33 was invalid because it conflicted with the California Emergency Services Act (CESA) and another provision in the city’s code, arguing that the city had acted illegally during the emergency.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed Fix the City’s claims for writ and declaratory relief, which sought to vacate the emergency declaration and any resulting directives, as well as a declaration that section 8.33 was void for conflicting with CESA and local law. The city responded with a demurrer, asserting that section 8.33 was a proper exercise of municipal authority and did not conflict with CESA or the city’s own code. The superior court agreed, finding that CESA did not apply to charter cities unless there was a clear legislative directive, and that section 8.33 was not inconsistent with other city code provisions. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and Fix the City appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court held that CESA does not preempt section 8.33 because the two do not conflict; section 8.33 is a valid exercise of the city’s home rule powers over municipal affairs. Additionally, section 8.33 did not violate other provisions of the city’s administrative code. The denial of leave to amend was also upheld. View "Fix the City, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Several members of a family brought suit against a court-appointed receiver and his company, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The dispute arose when the State of California, in the course of a criminal insurance fraud prosecution against one of the plaintiffs, obtained a court order freezing certain assets and appointing the receiver to manage them. The court later ordered the receiver to liquidate specified stock holdings "as soon as practicable." The plaintiffs alleged that the receiver failed to do so, resulting in a significant loss in the value of the accounts during the period before he was replaced by a successor. They claimed damages of over $1.1 million due to the alleged failure to comply with the liquidation order.After the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Superior Court of Orange County, the defendants responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the claims arose from protected conduct and that the receiver was immune from liability under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the claims were based on acts performed in the receiver’s official capacity and that plaintiffs failed to show a probability of prevailing because the receiver’s conduct was protected by both the litigation privilege and quasi-judicial immunity.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that a court-appointed receiver is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary acts and decisions made in that capacity. The court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims arose from the receiver’s exercise of discretion regarding when liquidation was "practicable," and such discretionary conduct is protected. Because the claims were subject to anti-SLAPP procedures and the plaintiffs failed to establish minimal merit, the appellate court affirmed the order striking the complaint. The court also rejected arguments based on statutory immunities for public employees, clarifying its decision was grounded in common law quasi-judicial immunity. View "Semaan v. Mosier" on Justia Law

A dispute arose among four adult brothers regarding the division of their parents’ estate. After their mother’s death, two of the brothers, Brittin and Kent, reported to the San Diego Police Department that their mother was missing, despite knowing she had died of natural causes. Their intention was to cast suspicion on their siblings, Todd and Wade, with whom they had a contentious relationship. The police briefly investigated before learning of the mother’s death and closing the matter. The phone call from the police deeply distressed Wade, a recovering alcoholic who had been sober for 15 years. Within a week, Wade relapsed, drove his motorcycle while intoxicated, and died in a crash. A psychologist testified at trial that the distress caused by the police inquiry precipitated Wade’s relapse.The Superior Court of San Diego County presided over a jury trial in which Todd, both individually and as Wade’s successor in interest, pursued claims for wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligence, and conspiracy. The jury found Brittin and Kent liable for negligence and IIED, and determined their conduct was a substantial factor in causing Wade severe emotional distress and his subsequent death. Damages were awarded to both Wade’s estate and Todd, including punitive damages. The defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial were denied.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, the defendants conceded the jury’s factual findings but argued that their actions were not, as a matter of law, the legal cause of Wade’s death. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that under the broader scope of liability for intentional torts, the defendants' intentional infliction of emotional distress was a legal cause of Wade’s death. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and the denial of JNOV, upholding all damages awards. View "Fisher v. Fisher" on Justia Law

J.S. sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her former fiancé, D.A., alleging ongoing abuse that included physical violence and threatening communications while D.A. was incarcerated. J.S. described several incidents of abuse during their relationship and stated that she was fearful of further harm upon D.A.’s eventual release from prison. After J.S. filed for a DVRO, the Superior Court of San Diego County issued a temporary restraining order, and scheduled an evidentiary hearing to decide on a permanent order. D.A., still incarcerated, responded to the court by requesting an opportunity to appear telephonically at the hearing, citing his inability to attend in person.The Superior Court of San Diego County continued the initial hearing but did not address D.A.’s request to appear telephonically. At the rescheduled hearing, D.A. was not present, and the court did not document any attempt to facilitate his participation or check his custody status. Based on J.S.’s testimony and the evidence on file, the court issued a five-year DVRO against D.A. Afterward, D.A. filed motions seeking discovery, an expert, and assistance for telephonic appearance, but there was no indication the court acted on these filings. D.A. then appealed, arguing he was denied meaningful access to the court.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court abused its discretion by not considering and ruling on D.A.’s request for telephonic appearance, depriving him of his right to meaningful access to the courts as an indigent inmate in a bona fide civil action. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, ordering the trial court to ensure D.A. is provided with meaningful access. The temporary restraining order remains in effect pending further proceedings. View "J.S. v. D.A." on Justia Law

Four brothers who had previously formed a diamond partnership later entered into an oral agreement in 1995 with a fifth brother to create a separate real estate partnership. The agreement was never reduced to writing, consistent with family custom. Over several years, the brothers jointly acquired and managed a large portfolio of California real estate. Tensions arose after the original real estate owner repaid a loan that was a condition for his partnership interest. One brother, who controlled the partnership’s entities, began excluding the others and denied the existence of any partnership, asserting sole ownership over the assets.The litigation began in 2003 when the excluded brother sued his siblings and related entities for his partnership share and damages. Two other brothers, who initially disclaimed the partnership under alleged economic coercion, later filed cross-complaints for their shares in both the diamond and real estate partnerships. The case saw multiple prior appeals and writ proceedings. After the trial court initially granted summary adjudication against the main plaintiff on most claims, the California Court of Appeal reversed, allowing contract, fiduciary duty, and fraud claims to proceed. Further cross-complaints were filed by the brothers, which survived demurrer on statute of limitations grounds.In 2024, after a lengthy jury trial, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County entered judgment in favor of the three plaintiff brothers, awarding declaratory relief, partnership shares, compensatory and punitive damages, and prejudgment interest totaling about $6.85 billion against the controlling brother and the partnership entities. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, rejected most challenges to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and instructions, but held the court erred in admitting an undisclosed expert opinion concerning lost investment profits. The appellate court conditionally affirmed the judgment, ordering a reduction of the economic damages awards relating to the real estate partnership by amounts attributable to this opinion, unless the plaintiffs opt for a new trial on those damages and related punitive damages. The judgments were otherwise affirmed. View "Jogani v. Jogani" on Justia Law

A minor admitted to committing vandalism causing property damage exceeding $400. The juvenile court adjudged the minor a ward of the court, placed him on probation, and reserved jurisdiction over restitution. At a later hearing, the court accepted a stipulation between the minor and the prosecution regarding the amount of restitution and ordered the minor, his co-offender, and his parents jointly and severally liable for payment. The minor did not appeal the initial dispositional or restitution orders.Subsequently, after a statutory amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 eliminated joint and several liability for co-offenders in juvenile restitution, the minor requested that the court divide liability, making him responsible solely for half the restitution. The Superior Court of San Diego County denied this request, reaffirmed joint and several liability, and after the minor successfully completed probation, dismissed the petition and sealed his records. The minor appealed the postjudgment orders, arguing the new law should apply retroactively to his case because his case was not yet final.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether the case was final for purposes of retroactive application of ameliorative legislation under the Estrada rule. The court held that a juvenile case becomes final for these purposes when the dispositional order is not appealed within the allowed time and direct review is exhausted. The court found that the minor’s case became final before the new statute took effect because he did not appeal the dispositional or restitution orders. As a result, the amendment did not apply retroactively to his case. The court affirmed the postjudgment orders. View "In re Christian V." on Justia Law

A married couple leased a commercial property from a landlord for use as a salon. As their lease approached expiration in March 2020, one of the tenants decided to retire, and the COVID-19 pandemic led to a state-issued stay-at-home order. The tenants left their salon equipment on the premises at the landlord’s repeated assurances not to worry about it. One day before the lease expired, the tenants paid an amount equivalent to one month’s rent with a note indicating the payment was a gesture of support during the pandemic. Three months later, they made a smaller payment. There was no discussion or agreement to continue the tenancy month-to-month. Several months after returning the keys, the landlord demanded rent for the months following lease expiration, asserting that the initial payment created a month-to-month tenancy under California Civil Code section 1945.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County held a bench trial and found the tenants credible, particularly regarding the nature of the payment as a gift rather than rent. The court concluded the statutory presumption of a renewed month-to-month tenancy was rebutted by the parties’ actions and lack of communication about continuing the tenancy. The court found no contract existed after the lease expired and entered judgment for the tenants. The landlord’s motion to vacate the judgment was denied.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in its application of section 1945, finding no contract arose after the lease expired. The court emphasized that the presumption of a month-to-month tenancy is rebuttable by objective evidence showing the parties did not mutually agree to continue the lease. The judgment in favor of the tenants was affirmed. View "Ashirwad, LLC v. Bradbury" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization brought an action under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65), alleging that a business’s tortilla products exposed consumers to acrylamide, a known carcinogen, without providing the required warnings. Before filing suit, the nonprofit sent the business and the California Attorney General a 60-day notice of violation, as required by Proposition 65. The notice identified the parties, the chemical, the product, and the exposure route, and included a certificate of merit and a summary of Proposition 65 (Appendix A), though it provided contact information for the nonprofit’s retained counsel rather than an individual within the nonprofit, and attached an outdated version of Appendix A.The Superior Court of San Diego County heard the business’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The business argued that strict compliance with the notice requirements was necessary, and that the nonprofit’s notice was deficient because it did not provide contact information for a responsible individual within the entity and included an outdated summary of Proposition 65. The trial court agreed, finding both deficiencies were fatal and granted the business’s motion, dismissing the action.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the dismissal. The appellate court held that the relevant regulation (section 25903) should be interpreted as directory rather than mandatory, meaning substantial compliance—rather than strict compliance—with the notice requirements is sufficient. The court determined that providing counsel’s contact information and an earlier version of Appendix A did not defeat the essential purposes of the notice requirement and that the nonprofit’s notice substantially complied. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded the case with directions to deny the business’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Pancho Villa's, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2000, Tommie Lawson Lynex, an African American man, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and received a firearm enhancement under California Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d), resulting in a sentence of 50 years to life. Twenty years later, California enacted the Racial Justice Act, allowing prisoners to seek habeas relief if their conviction or sentence was influenced by race, ethnicity, or national origin. Lynex filed a habeas petition under this Act, including statistical evidence showing racial disparities in the prosecution of murder charges with firearm enhancements in Los Angeles County.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially denied Lynex’s habeas petition and his request for appointment of counsel, finding the petition procedurally barred as successive and concluding that Lynex had not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the Racial Justice Act. The court also determined that Lynex did not sufficiently allege facts indicating racial animus or bias in the police investigation or prosecution.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by requiring a prima facie showing for appointment of counsel. Under the Racial Justice Act and section 1473, subdivision (e), a petitioner need only plead a plausible allegation of a violation to obtain counsel. The appellate court also found that the trial court erred by not recognizing its discretion to permit amendment of the petition and by improperly invoking procedural bars at the initial stage. The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its denial and conduct further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re Lynex" on Justia Law

The case concerns a criminal defendant who, while living with his parents and sister, became involved in a heated conflict with his sister. During the altercation, he threatened her and, at one point, pointed a gun and later a taser at her, ultimately leading her to leave the house. The defendant was charged by the Riverside County District Attorney with multiple offenses, including assault with a semiautomatic firearm, making criminal threats, assault with a deadly weapon, and misdemeanor battery. The defendant filed a motion for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, supported by diagnoses from mental health professionals indicating longstanding mental disorders that contributed to his conduct.Prior to trial, the Superior Court of Riverside County held a hearing on the motion. The court found a connection between the defendant’s mental health diagnoses and his conduct but concluded that his actions were primarily motivated by his sister’s threats to out him to their parents, rather than by his mental disorder alone. The court denied the diversion motion, reasoning that the defendant did not fall within the “spirit” of the diversion statute because he had been compliant with mental health treatment at the time of the incident and had no prior criminal history.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case after the defendant petitioned for a writ of mandate. The appellate court held that the trial court abused its residual discretion by denying the motion on improper grounds, misapplying the legal standard for diversion. The appellate court directed the trial court to vacate its order and conduct a new hearing consistent with the correct legal standards, emphasizing that eligibility for diversion does not require a mental disorder to be the sole motivating factor in the offense. The petition was granted and remanded for further proceedings. View "Flareau v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law