Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

An investor brought a derivative action against the managers of a limited liability company, alleging unauthorized transactions conducted under their management. After a bench trial, the investor lost both at trial and on appeal. The investor’s claims were rejected, and the court awarded costs to the prevailing manager. Although both managers were originally involved in the case, only one remained relevant for the cost award proceedings at this stage.Following the trial and appellate losses, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County awarded costs to the prevailing manager under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.891, which together provide that a prevailing party is generally entitled to recover costs. The plaintiff had previously defeated the manager’s motion for a security bond under Corporations Code section 17709.02, a statute intended to deter frivolous derivative suits. The plaintiff argued that this earlier success on the bond motion should bar any subsequent award of costs, claiming that section 17709.02 overrides the ordinary cost rules.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed this argument. The appellate court held that Corporations Code section 17709.02 does not preclude an award of ordinary litigation costs to a prevailing defendant in a derivative action where the bond motion was denied. The court found no statutory language supporting the plaintiff’s position and noted that case law, including Brusso v. Running Springs Country Club, Inc., confirms that the bond statute is special-purpose and does not displace general cost-recovery rules. The appellate court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, awarding costs to the prevailing defendant. The court also found that the plaintiff had forfeited several additional arguments by failing to support them with adequate briefing or legal authority. View "Barrios v. Chraghchian" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization challenged the validity of the City of La Habra’s February 2023 revision to its housing element, arguing that the modifications were adopted by the City Manager rather than the City Council and without additional public hearings. The housing element, part of the city’s general plan, is subject to periodic revision and state review. In this instance, after several public meetings and hearings on earlier drafts, the City Council adopted the housing element in September 2022 and authorized the City Manager to make further technical or clerical changes necessary for state certification. The City Manager subsequently approved additional revisions in February 2023, which were submitted to and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development.In the Superior Court of Orange County, the nonprofit filed a petition for writ of mandate, seeking to prohibit the City from treating the February 2023 version as validly adopted. The court denied the petition, finding that the City had met public participation requirements through hearings on prior drafts and online posting of the revised element. The trial court also ruled that the City Council validly delegated authority to the City Manager for minor revisions and determined that any procedural errors were harmless, as required by Government Code section 65010, subdivision (b).The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the judgment. The court held that additional public hearings were not required for the February 2023 modifications since they constituted part of the ongoing revision and certification process, rather than a distinct amendment. It further held that the City Council’s delegation of authority to the City Manager was valid and consistent with local law. Finally, the court found no prejudicial error or substantial harm resulted from the process used, upholding the presumption of validity following state certification. The judgment was affirmed. View "Californians for Homeownership v. City of La Habra" on Justia Law

Three individuals enrolled in a six-month, residential substance abuse rehabilitation program operated by a nonprofit organization in California. During their participation, they performed full-time work in the organization’s warehouses and thrift stores, which the nonprofit termed “work therapy.” In exchange, they received room, board, limited gratuities, and rehabilitation services, but no formal wages. The organization controlled their work schedules and prohibited outside employment. The participants asserted that they often worked over 40 hours weekly and performed tasks similar to paid employees. They disputed the nonprofit’s claim that work therapy was primarily rehabilitative, alleging instead that the arrangement benefitted the nonprofit by reducing costs and replacing paid staff.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco reviewed cross-motions for summary adjudication focused on whether the plaintiffs were employees entitled to minimum wage and overtime under California law. The trial court ruled that the wage laws did not apply because the participants were volunteers, not employees, emphasizing that a key threshold for employee status was an express or implied agreement for compensation. Because the plaintiffs voluntarily participated without such an agreement, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the nonprofit and entered judgment accordingly.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that although volunteers for nonprofit organizations may fall outside wage law coverage, the trial court erred by applying an overly narrow standard focused solely on the existence of an agreement for compensation. Instead, the Court of Appeal established a two-part test: nonprofits must show (1) that individuals freely agreed to volunteer for personal benefit rather than compensation, and (2) that the use of volunteer labor is not a subterfuge to evade wage laws. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings under this standard. View "Spilman v. The Salvation Army" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was an employee who brought claims for wrongful termination, Labor Code violations, and breach of contract against two defendants: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Public Transportation Services Corporation (PTSC). MTA had created PTSC, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, to provide retirement and employment benefits to certain workers and to manage employees who support MTA’s transportation functions. The plaintiff did not file a prelitigation claim under the Government Claims Act (GCA) before suing these entities.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County first granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of both defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged compliance with the GCA’s claim presentation requirements. The plaintiff was given leave to amend but continued to argue that PTSC was not a public entity subject to the GCA, and that even if it was, the claims presentation requirement should not apply because PTSC had not registered as required by statute. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding both defendants to be public entities and that PTSC was not required to register separately from MTA. The court entered judgment for both defendants.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, the plaintiff did not challenge the judgment in favor of MTA but contested the ruling as to PTSC. The appellate court held that PTSC qualifies as a public entity for purposes of the GCA’s claims presentation requirement, given its creation and control by MTA. However, the court found that if PTSC failed to register properly on the Registry of Public Agencies—including with county clerks where it maintains offices—this would excuse the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the GCA. The judgment for MTA was affirmed, but the judgment for PTSC was reversed and remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint. View "Black v. L.A. County Metropolitan Transp. Authority" on Justia Law

Karen L. Willis, operating as Harlem West Entertainment and married to Victor Willis, the original lead singer of the Village People, alleged that the Walt Disney Company and related entities engaged in unfair competition and fraud. The dispute arose after Disney hired the reconstituted Village People, led by Victor Willis, for performances at Walt Disney World in 2018. Following these events, Willis claimed Disney instituted a secret ban on booking the Village People for future concerts and made misleading statements to the band’s agents about potential future engagements. Willis asserted that Disney’s actions, including evasive communications and refusal to consider booking proposals, constituted unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices.The Superior Court of San Diego County reviewed Disney’s special motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16). The trial court denied Disney’s motion, finding that Disney failed to meet its initial burden of showing that the conduct alleged in Willis’s complaint was protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute’s catchall provision. The court concluded that, although the conduct implicated a public issue, it did not further or participate in a public conversation about that issue. As a result, the trial court did not address Disney’s evidentiary objections or whether Willis’s claims had minimal merit.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that Disney’s selection of musical acts for public concerts and its related communications with the Village People’s agents were protected conduct under the anti-SLAPP statute’s catchall provision. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Willis’s claims have minimal merit, as required by the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. View "Willis v. The Walt Disney Company" on Justia Law

A group of dentists, who are both members of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation and parties to provider agreements with that corporation, challenged the corporation’s decision to unilaterally amend its fee schedules and related rules. The provider agreements allowed the corporation to set the fees paid to dentists for services rendered to plan enrollees, and the agreements, as amended by a 2018 settlement, expressly permitted the corporation to make unilateral changes to the fee structure with 120 days’ notice, during which dentists could terminate their agreements if they did not accept the new terms. In 2022, the corporation announced further amendments that, according to the dentists, reduced fees and altered the fee determination process. The dentists alleged that these changes breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in their provider agreements and that certain directors breached fiduciary duties owed to them as members.The Superior Court of San Francisco City and County sustained demurrers by all defendants without leave to amend. The court found that the corporation could not breach the implied covenant by exercising rights expressly granted in the agreements, and that the directors owed no fiduciary duty to the dentists in connection with the corporation’s exercise of its contractual rights to amend fee schedules.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be used to override or limit a party’s express contractual right to unilaterally amend fee schedules, provided the contract is supported by consideration and the changes are prospective, with adequate notice and an opportunity to terminate. The court also held that directors of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation owe fiduciary duties to the corporation itself, not to individual members in their capacity as contracting parties. View "California Dental Assn. v. Delta Dental of California" on Justia Law

Angel Lynn Realty, Inc. (ALR) entered into a partnership agreement with Real Estate Portfolio Management, LLC (REPM) to purchase, rehabilitate, and sell properties, splitting profits equally. ALR alleged that REPM breached the agreement by failing to pay over $800,000 in profits and also breached its fiduciary duties. ALR further claimed that Steve George, REPM’s sole member, was the alter ego of REPM. After REPM failed to pay the judgment, ALR conducted a debtor’s examination and asserted that postjudgment actions by George fraudulently drained REPM’s assets to avoid payment.The Superior Court of Sacramento County held a bench trial and found in favor of ALR on the breach of partnership and fiduciary duty claims, awarding nearly $1 million in damages and interest against REPM. However, the court found that ALR had not proven George was REPM’s alter ego and entered judgment accordingly. When ALR later moved to amend the judgment to add George as a judgment debtor based on alleged postjudgment fraudulent conduct, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the alter ego issue since it had already been decided.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred by applying collateral estoppel without considering whether new facts or changed circumstances had arisen since the prior decision. The appellate court clarified that collateral estoppel does not bar reconsideration of an issue if material facts have changed after the original judgment. The order denying ALR’s motion to amend the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to determine whether postjudgment events warrant a different outcome on the alter ego issue. View "Angel Lynn Realty, Inc. v. George" on Justia Law

Steven Meads and Penny Lipking-Meads operated a business as a sole proprietorship before partnering with Jed Driggers in 2010 to expand the business. The parties formed Afterburner, LLC, with the Meadses and Driggers as members, and Driggers as manager. The Meadses contributed assets and goodwill, while Driggers provided capital and expertise. The LLC’s operating agreement included a provision stating that the LLC could only be dissolved by a vote of the members or bankruptcy/insolvency, and that members agreed not to take any other voluntary action to dissolve the LLC, effectively waiving the right to seek judicial dissolution under certain statutory circumstances.A decade later, the Meadses alleged Driggers had improperly diverted business funds and filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Siskiyou County seeking, among other relief, judicial dissolution of the LLC. Driggers and the LLC filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, arguing that the Meadses violated the operating agreement’s waiver provision by seeking dissolution. The Meadses responded with a motion to strike the cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, contending that the waiver provision was unenforceable as contrary to law and public policy. The Superior Court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the cross-complaint arose from protected activity and that Driggers could not show a probability of prevailing.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that, under the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act, an LLC operating agreement may not waive or vary a member’s statutory right to seek judicial dissolution in the circumstances specified by law. The court concluded that the waiver provision was void and unenforceable, and thus Driggers could not prevail on his cross-complaint. The order striking the cross-complaint was affirmed. View "Meads v. Driggers" 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

Donald Norman, Patrick Strateman, and Amir Taaki established Intersango, a cryptocurrency exchange. After Intersango ceased operations, Norman filed a derivative complaint on behalf of Intersango against Patrick and Jamie Strateman and Taaki, alleging various claims including breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. The parties later entered into a settlement agreement, but over a year later, Norman sought to set aside the settlement, while the Stratemans moved to enforce it. The trial court granted the motion to enforce the settlement and denied Norman's motion to set it aside, leading to the dismissal of the claims.The trial court, presided over by Judge Rochelle East, found that the settlement agreement was enforceable and dismissed the claims and cross-claims with prejudice. Norman appealed, arguing that the settlement required judicial approval because it involved derivative claims, and that the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement without such approval.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Norman, holding that the settlement of derivative claims requires judicial approval to ensure it is fair and reasonable and not the product of fraud or collusion. The court found that neither Judge Kahn, who mediated the settlement, nor Judge East, who ruled on the motions, conducted the necessary judicial review and approval of the settlement. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's order enforcing the settlement and remanded the case for the trial court to conduct the required judicial review of the settlement. View "Norman v. Strateman" on Justia Law