Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against defendant for failure to pay overtime wages, among other causes of action. The complaint alleged that the putative class members were non-exempt employees who chauffeured vehicles for defendant, and that defendant failed to compensate them for periods when they were required to remain on-call in between trips transporting clients. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the trial court's denial of their motion for class certification. The court reversed because the trial court's analysis of the numerosity factor was incorrect; the trial court improperly considered the merits of defendant's affirmative defenses; and the trial court denied plaintiffs due process by failing to grant them an adequate opportunity to perform discovery on and brief certification issues. View "Hendershot v. Ready to Roll Transportation, Inc." on Justia Law

The City sought a writ of mandate challenging the trial court's order denying summary adjudication with respect to Mercury's inverse condemnation and nuisance claims based on damages to Mercury's insured's house caused by a tree the City owned. The court concluded that the trial court properly denied summary adjudication as to the inverse condemnation cause of action because there were triable issues of material fact as to whether the tree was part of a work of public improvement. Further the City failed to meet its burden on summary adjudication of establishing that Mercury could not show nuisance. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "City of Pasadena v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Scott Carlton sued defendants and respondents Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Mott’s LP, Larry Young, Caesar Vargas, and Graham Bailey alleging: (1) wrongful termination against Dr. Pepper and Mott’s; (2) sex discrimination against all defendants; and (3) breach of contract against Dr. Pepper and Mott’s. The trial court sustained, without leave to amend, the demurrer of Dr. Pepper, Vargas, Bailey, and Mott’s. The trial court also sanctioned Carlton and his trial counsel jointly and severally in the amount of $1,360 due to Carlton’s “wholly unjustified” interrogatory responses. The only respondent on appeal was Dr. Pepper (the other defendants are not respondents in this appeal). Carlton contended the trial court erred by granting the demurrer because the demurrer was untimely. Further, Carlton argued the demurrer improperly included the breach of contract cause of action, and therefore the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer on that cause of action. Finally, Carlton contended the trial court erred by imposing sanctions. Upon review, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of discovery sanctions in this case, "discovery sanctions are not designed to punish; rather, they are designed to fix the problem created by the evasive responses. [. . .] Dr. Pepper’s late motions to compel could not have fixed Carlton’s evasive responses, because the motions to compel were untimely and therefore Dr. Pepper waived its right to seek further responses. Dr. Pepper missed its opportunity to fix the problem. [. . .] Therefore, discovery sanctions were not warranted, because the problem could no longer be fixed." The Court affirmed the trial court's decision in all other respects. View "Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Hoffmans purchased the 170 Wolfe property. After close of escrow, the owner of adjoining property, 162 LLC, claimed a landscape easement and prescriptive easement rights of ingress and egress over 170 Wolfe and sued to quiet title. The Hoffmans cross-claimed that 162 LLC had defrauded them by falsely advising that they had no claims or interest with respect to the 170 property, based upon a conversation that allegedly occurred eight months before close of escrow between Hoffman and one of 162 LLC’s members. The Hoffmans had observed vehicles crossing the 170 property to service the 162 property, but neither raised the issue with the then-owner of 170 Wolfe, nor complained to 162 LLC. 162 LLC successfully moved for summary adjudication of the fraud claims. The parties settled their remaining claims. The court of appeal affirmed. The concealment/suppression of facts claim failed because there was no evidence of a duty on the part of 162 LLC to disclose that it claimed rights or of justifiable reliance on the facts as the Hoffmans understood them without such disclosure. The intentional misrepresentation claim failed for lack of evidence that the Hoffmans justifiably relied on 162 LLC’s alleged implicit representation that it did not claim any easement rights. View "Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe, LLC" on Justia Law

Ebertowski was granted probation after he pleaded no contest to criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422) and resisting or deterring an officer (section 69) and admitted a gang allegation (section 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)). He challenged two of the probation conditions imposed by the trial court that required him to “provide all passwords to any electronic devices, including cell phones, computers or notepads, within your custody or control, and submit such devices to search at any time without a warrant by any peace officer” and “provide all passwords to any social media sites, including Facebook, Instagram and Mocospace and to submit those sites to search at any time without a warrant by any peace officer.” The court of appeal affirmed, finding that the conditions are not unconstitutionally overbroad or unreasonable and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing them. View "People v. Ebertowski" on Justia Law

Chubb petitioned for a writ of mandate, contending that the trial court's order to produce documents improperly impinged on the attorney-client privilege and the attorney duty to maintain client confidences. The court held that, for the limited purposes ordered by the trial court, the trial court did not err in permitting the parties to disclose the documents at issue to their respective attorneys in this case. Based on the record, there was no meaningful distinction between an allegation of privilege as to a party's information and an allegation of privilege as to a third party's information. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Chubb & Son v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Don Bizek obtained a judgment against Sally Gordon, a trustee and beneficiary of the WPB Trust, and sought to execute his judgment against Gordon's beneficial interest in the WPB Trust. If the disclaimer is valid, it caused Gordon's beneficial interest to descend to Cyndi Vance, Gordon's daughter and successor beneficiary. If the disclaimer is void, Bizek may attach Gordon's beneficial interest in the WPB Trust. The trial court ruled that Gordon's disclaimer was void. However, the court concluded that the presumption created by section 16004 of the Probate Code that a trustee who commingles trust funds with her own funds violates her fiduciary duty to the trust applies only to the relationship between a trustee and trust beneficiaries. In this case, the trial court applied the presumption for the benefit of a creditor of the trustee, not a beneficiary of the trust. Therefore, the trial court committed error and the court reversed and remanded. Bizek was not entitled to the section 16004 presumption and thus had the burden to prove that Gordon's use of WPB Trust funds demonstrated acceptance of her beneficial interest in the Trust. View "Vance v. Bizek" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his company entered into a personal service agreement to act as technology reporter with KTLA, a television broadcaster. After the personal service agreement was terminated, plaintiff and his company filed suit alleging breach of contract, age discrimination, unfair business practices, and misappropriation of plaintiff's likeness. On appeal, KTLA challenged an order denying its motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that defendant forfeited the right to compel compliance with the collective bargaining agreement's non-arbitration provisions in the three-step grievance process; the arbitration provisions of the three-step grievance process did not allow KTLA to compel arbitration between it and plaintiff and his company; and the trial court, not an arbitrator, resolves the substantive arbitrability issue, notwithstanding the holding in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Knutsson v. KTLA" on Justia Law

Mother appealed from a juvenile court order declaring her two daughters dependents of the court based on mother's failure to provide for the children. The court concluded that, because jurisdiction was proper based on Father's conduct, the court need not consider whether it was also proper based on Mother's conduct. In the alternative, the court concluded that Mother waived the issue of whether substantial evidence supported jurisdiction based on her failure to provide. Further, there was sufficient evidence regarding Mother's failure to protect the minors from Father's conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the juvenile court's jurisdictional order. View "In re A.R." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against Home Service on behalf of customer service managers who were not reimbursed for expenses pertaining to the work-related use of their personal cell phones. The court held that when employees must use their personal cell phones for work-related calls, Labor Code section 2802 requires the employer to reimburse them; whether the employees have cell phone plans with unlimited or limited minutes, the reimbursement owed is a reasonable percentage of their cell phone bills; and, because the trial court relied on erroneous legal assumptions about the application of section 2802, the court reversed the order denying certification to the class. On remand, the trial court shall reconsider the motion for class certification in light of the court's interpretation of section 2802. View "Cochran v. Schwan'Âs Home Service" on Justia Law