Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Mother appealed from an order entered at the last contested section 364 of the Welfare and Institutions Code hearing at which the juvenile court maintained jurisdiction over her 17-month-old son despite the recommendation of the Department to terminate jurisdiction. The court concluded that there is substantial evidence submitted by the Department and in the record that supports the juvenile court's determination not to terminate jurisdiction. Among other things, Mother still struggled with providing the son with everything he needed; a counselor reported that Mother will benefit from continued treatment; the parenting and mental concerns that brought Mother to the attention of the Department and Children's court remain a work in progress; and there is no evidence concerning mother's capacity to live independently. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order. View "In re J.F." on Justia Law

Seven years after appellant Marjorie L. was appointed guardian of her two granddaughters, A.L. and E.L., the trial court granted a petition to terminate the guardianship filed by the minors’ parents, respondents Jennifer L. and Richard L., after a hearing that took only minutes at which no evidence was introduced, no witness testimony was taken, and no arguments from counsel were heard. The Court of Appeal concluded that this truncated process deprived the guardian of any meaningful hearing or opportunity to object to the petition, and prevented the court from fully considering whether termination was in the best interests of the minors. The Court therefore reversed the order terminating the guardianship and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing before a different judge to consider whether termination is in the minors’ best interests. View "Guardianship of A.L." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against Lebo, alleging violations of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code 12940 et seq., and Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the trial court's order granting defendants' motion to compel him to arbitrate his individual claims, as well as defendants' motion to dismiss all class claims without prejudice. The court held that the question whether the parties agreed to class arbitration was for the arbitrator rather than the trial court to decide, and that the trial court erred by deciding that issue in this case. The court did not reach the merits of whether the arbitration provisions plaintiff signed permit arbitration. The court also did not address plaintiff's argument that the trial court failed to consider extrinsic evidence demonstrating that the parties impliedly agreed to arbitrate on a class-wide basis. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive" on Justia Law

In 2007 Rufini purchased his Sonoma residence with a $600,000 loan. Rufini and his fiancée lived in the home until they separated. In June 2009, CitiMortgage approved Rufini for a loan modification and told him he would receive a permanent modification after making timely trial payments of $2787.93 in July, August and September. Rufini timely made the payments at the modified rate through December. In January, 2010, CitiMortgage informed him that his permanent loan modification agreement would be ready in three days. Three months later, with still no written agreement, he rented out his house to offset expenses In August Rufini learned that Citibank was denying his loan modification, because the home was not owner-occupied. He attempted to make timely mortgage payments at the modified level, but CitiMortgage returned his checks. Rufini received a notice of default in September 2010, followed by a notice of trustee’s sale scheduled for January 2011. He contacted CitiMortgage and obtained its agreement to delay the foreclosure. CitiMortgage assigned Semien to Rufini’s account, but Rufini was unable to contact him on the phone for three and a half weeks. On April 11 Rufini was informed his modification was “in final state of completion.” On May 4, his house was sold at auction. The trial court dismissed Rufini’s complaint alleging “breach of contract—promissory estoppel,” breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court reversed and remanded the claims of negligent representation and under Business and Professions Code section 17200, the unfair competition law. View "Rufini v. CitiMortgage" on Justia Law

Nearly 15 years after the Orange County Assessor established the base year value used to assess real property taxes against plaintiff William Jefferson & Co., Inc.'s property, the company appealed to defendant Assessment Appeals Board claiming the Assessor made a clerical error in valuing the property. The Appeals Board conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied the appeal on the ground plaintiff had waited too long to challenge the Assessor's base year value determination. The Appeals Board found plaintiff based its appeal not on a clerical error but on the Assessor's error in judging the property's value, and therefore plaintiff failed to comply with Revenue and Taxation Code sections 51.5, subdivision (b), and 80, subdivision (a)(3), which required plaintiff to appeal within four years of the Assessor's base year value determination. Plaintiff filed suit seeking to compel the Appeals Board to grant its appeal and direct the Assessor to change the property's base year value. However, plaintiff failed to address the Appeals Board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to grant plaintiff's appeal, instead relying on the Assessor's allegedly erroneous property valuation. The trial court granted the Appeals Board summary judgment because plaintiff challenged the merits of the Assessor's valuation and therefore had to bring this action against the County of Orange and not the Appeals Board. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Wm. Jefferson & Co. v. Assessment Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

After the jury awarded damages to plaintiffs for their injuries resulting from a tractor-trailer accident, both parties appealed the trial court's orders. The court concluded that defendants' motion for a new trial and motion notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) were premature because they were filed before the case was fully decided. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's order as to those rulings. Further, the trial court's order striking the awards of noneconomic damages is nonappealable and defendants' appeal from the judgment is of no effect and must be dismissed because there is no judgment. The court also concluded that unpaid medical bills are not evidence of the reasonable value of the services provided, and no expert witness declaration is required for a treating physician offering an opinion based on facts acquired in the physician-patient relationship or otherwise acquired independently of the litigation, including, to the extent it is otherwise admissible, an opinion on reasonable value. View "Ochoa v. Dorado" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, a law firm and an attorney, on her legal malpractice claim. The court concluded that there was no triable issue of material fact as to causation where plaintiff disregarded the firm's advice to accept an initial settlement in an underlying putative spouse lawsuit. When plaintiff obtained new counsel, she also disregarded his advice to accept the settlement. Plaintiff ultimately recovered nothing from the underlying suit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Moua v. Pittullo, Howington, Barker, Abernathy, LLP" on Justia Law

Lucky filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the Superior Court's decision to decline to appoint a temporary judge for the purpose of ruling on motions for preliminary and final approval of a settlement. The court concluded that the California Constitution, the California Rules of Court, and public policy concerns preclude the appointment of a temporary judge for purposes of approving the settlement of a pre-certification class action. When the class had not yet been certified, the putative class representative has no authority to consent to a temporary judge on behalf of the absent putative class members. Therefore, the court denied the writ petition. View "Luckey v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against John Travolta, Atlo, and others (collectively, "Atlo"), seeking a declaration as to whether a three-page agreement or a four-page agreement was the enforceable termination agreement between the parties, and whether a confidentiality provision, if one exists, is enforceable. Atlo filed an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) motion to strike the first amended complaint under Code Civ. Proc., 425.16. The court held that a declaratory relief action filed in response to an attorney's letters threatening litigation over the contract dispute does not come within the provisions of an anti-SLAPP lawsuit where the lawsuit sought a declaration regarding the terms of plaintiff's termination agreement, not whether Atlo may send demand letters or threaten litigation. Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court properly denied the motion to strike the complaint and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Gotterba v. Travolta" on Justia Law

The Commissions challenged a post judgment order denying their motion for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, Cal. Civ. Proc., 102.5. The court affirmed the order denying attorney fees because section 1021.5 does not apply in this instance where the financial burden of this litigation was not out of proportion to the Commissions' pecuniary stakes in the proceedings. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Commissions failed to meet the "financial burden" element of section 1021.5, the court need not consider whether it satisfied the other criteria upon which the trial court denied the motion. View "Children & Families Commission v. Brown" on Justia Law