Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

LeFiell filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging an order denying its summary judgment motion on a Labor Code section 4558 claim. Section 4558 provides an exception to the exclusivity of the workers' compensation system for employees injured as a result of the employer's knowing removal of, or knowing failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press. The court concluded that, in this case, the door that was removed from the Fenn 5F swaging machine is not a point of operation guard as a matter of law. While the door acted as a barrier from the power press mechanisms, it was not a point of operation guard within the meaning of section 4558. Accordingly, the court granted the petition. View "LeFiell Mfg. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Real party in interest Frank Quintero was appointed to fill a vacant position on the city council for real party in interest the City of Glendale. Petitioners submitted an application for leave to sue in quo warranto to the Attorney General, arguing that the appointment violated the City Charter. The court affirmed the Attorney General's denial of the application because the Attorney General did not abuse her discretion in determining that it was not in the public interest to authorize the initiation of a quo warranto action. View "Rando v. Harris" on Justia Law

Father appealed from a judgment on reserved issues granting joint physical custody of his son to him and his mother, and allowing her to take the son with her to live in Israel during the school year. The court concluded that the trial court was not required to make findings under Family Code 3048 regarding whether measures were necessary to prevent the Mother from abducting the son; the trial court imposed adequate protective measures for international relocation; the custody order was not an abuse of discretion considering the son's best interest and the trial court made the necessary findings; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "J.M. v. G.H." on Justia Law

James J. and Sarah J. appealed the denial of their petition to declare Sarah's three children free from the custody and control of the children's father, Christopher M. James and Sarah also contended that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue a temporary visitation order allowing Christopher to have supervised visitation with the children during the pendency, or upon dismissal, of the petition to terminate parental rights. Finally, they contested the order directing them to pay Christopher's attorney fees. Christopher requested that the Court of Appeal dismiss this appeal as frivolous and impose sanctions. The Court affirmed the findings and orders of the trial court after review of the record, and denied Christopher's request for sanctions. View "In re E.M." on Justia Law

In 2008, plaintiffs were driving a 2004 Jeep Cherokee in San Joaquin County, when the vehicle rolled over and the roof collapsed. Young sustained injuries, rendering her a permanent quadriplegic. Young’s daughter allegedly suffered physical and emotional harm. They filed suit, claiming that the roof and restraint systems were defectively designed. The vehicle at issue was designed, manufactured, and distributed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DCC), a former indirect subsidiary of Daimler. Among others, the complaint named Daimler and DCC as defendants. Daimler is a German public stock company that designs and manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany and has its principal place of business in Stuttgart. Before 1998, DCC was known as Chrysler Corporation. After a 1998 agreement, Chrysler Corporation became an indirect subsidiary of Daimler and changed its name to DCC. DCC was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. It ceased to be a subsidiary of Daimler in 2007, changing its name to Chrysler LLC. Daimler is not a successor-in-interest to DCC or Chrysler LLC. Plaintiffs served Daimler with the complaint in accordance with the Hague Convention. The trial court quashed service for lack of personal jurisdiction over Daimler AG. The court of appeal affirmed, relying on the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman. View "Young v. Daimler AG" on Justia Law

Creditor sought to collect an exemplary damages award from a tortfeasor who was placed under a conservatorship after he was sued for his wrongdoing. The court held that a conservator's debts incurred before creation of the conservatorship must be paid from his estate. In this case, the court concluded that the debt was incurred when the conservatee committed the tort, not when the jury rendered its verdict awarding damages for the wrongful conduct. Therefore, the conservator must pay the punitive damages awarded to the creditor from the conservatee's estate. View "Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Parker" on Justia Law

Father appealed the juvenile court's order removing his three-year-old daughter from his custody for a single occasion of disciplining her by spanking her with a belt on her legs and buttocks. The court concluded that, given all the circumstances, the evidence with respect to the risk of harm to the child if Father were allowed back to the home, does not satisfy the requisite "clear and convincing" standard of proof. Further, there may be less drastic alternatives than an order requiring Father to leave the home. Accordingly, the court reversed the order to the extent it requires Father to remain outside the home and otherwise affirmed the remaining findings. View "In re A.E." on Justia Law

Defendant was a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison. Officers escorted him to the showers and placed him in a stall with a steel mesh security screen. After defendant finished showering, officers handcuffed him while he was still in the stall and asked whether he had a cellmate, because protocol required certain precautions when another inmate was present. Defendant responded with a vulgarity and spit through the screen, hitting two officers. Defendant spit at officers who came to assist. Found competent to stand trial, he was convicted of three counts of aggravated battery by gassing, Penal Code 4501.1, “intentionally placing or throwing, or causing to be placed or thrown, upon the person of another, any human excrement or other bodily fluids or bodily substances ... results in actual contact with the person’s skin or membranes.” Defendant had a prior conviction under the Three Strikes law; he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 11 years. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that: the court should have declared a doubt as to his competency and suspended criminal proceedings before trial began, even though he had been found competent; denial of his motion for self-representation under Faretta v. California was effective to show doubt as to his competence to stand trial; the court should have held a hearing on his right to substitute counsel; and the court erroneously believed it was required to impose consecutive sentences. View "People v. Hojnowski" on Justia Law

In 2007, husband and the parties’ then 8-year-old son came to the U.S. Wife joined the family in 2011 when her immigrant visa was approved. In 2012, wife filed a judicial council form, ex parte, requesting a Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), Fam. Code, 6200, order in favor of herself and the then 13-year-old child. In her attached declaration, wife described in detail three incidents of past abuse allegedly perpetrated by husband. A social worker had arranged for wife and the child to relocate to a domestic violence shelter outside of Alameda County. The trial court issued a temporary DVRO, which was continued to allow additional time to submit additional documentary evidence. The court later concluded it had no statutory authority to consider the DVRO request brought solely in wife’s name as “she is not apparently the victim of domestic violence.” The court of appeal remanded, stating that the facial adequacy of wife’s allegations showing that she was abused within the meaning of the DVPA divested the court of discretion to summarily deny her application. View "Gou v. Xiao" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue before the Court of Appeal centered on whether an election held by the City of San Diego to authorize the levying of a special tax complied with articles XIII A, XIII C and XIII D of the California Constitution. In the election at issue, the City did not permit the City's registered voters to vote on the special tax. Instead, the City passed an ordinance that specifically defined the electorate to consist solely of: (1) the owners of real property in the City on which a hotel is located, and (2) the lessees of real property owned by a governmental entity on which a hotel is located. The Court concluded the election was invalid under the California Constitution because such landowners and lessees were neither "qualified electors" of the City for purposes of article XIII A, section 4, nor did they comprise a proper "electorate" under article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (d). Furthermore, the Court concluded the election was invalid under the San Diego City Charter because City Charter section 76.1 required the approval of two-thirds of the "qualified electors" voting in an election on a special tax, and section 6 of the City Charter defined "[q]ualified [e]lectors" as those persons who are registered to vote in general state elections under state law. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's judgment validating the special tax and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to enter judgment against the City. View "City of San Diego v. Shapiro" on Justia Law