Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Bloxhams and the Saldingers disputed the location of their common property lines. At trial, the determinative issue was the location of the western boundary of the Shoquel Augmentation Rancho, a line roughly seven miles long. The deed descriptions of the parties’ parcels at issue called to that western boundary line of the Rancho. The exterior boundaries of the Rancho were surveyed by U.S. Deputy Surveyor Wallace in 1858, and the plat of the Rancho specified that it encompassed over 32,702 acres. The corners, or termini, of the Rancho line are SA-2 (at the southerly end) and SA-3 (at the northerly end). The parties’ surveyors reached different conclusions about the location of the Rancho line and the parties’ common boundaries. Following trial, which included a judicial view of the property, the court quieted title in favor of the Bloxhams. The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting an argument by the Saldingers that the survey done by their surveyor was sufficient as a matter of law because it “sufficiently” utilized the original 1858 survey, while the survey done by the Bloxhams’ surveyor was insufficient as a matter of law because it did not. View "Bloxham v. Saldinger" on Justia Law

Mother appealed the juvenile dependency court's jurisdictional orders based on its findings that Mother has a history of substance abuse which renders her incapable of providing her teenage daughter with regular care and supervision. The dependency court further found that Mother's drug abuse endangered her daughter's health and safety, and places her daughter at risk of physical harm. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the dependency court's finding that Mother suffers from a substance problem. The court concluded, however, that the evidence does not support the dependency court's finding that her substance abuse has caused or is causing a substantial risk of harm to the daughter. Accordingly, the court reversed the dependency court's orders. View "In re Rebecca C." on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Guilford appealed an order denying his petition to recall his sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. The Act sets forth a mechanism for relief for some existing three strikes inmates, creating a two-step process: (1) the trial court determines whether a defendant is qualified or disqualified from seeking a recall of sentence; (2) if and only if a defendant is found to be qualified, the trial court conducts a hearing, and then applies certain standards to determine whether the defendant’s sentence should be lessened. This appeal involved only the first step. Defendant contended: (1) the trial court improperly considered our prior opinion on direct appeal from defendant’s convictions in finding him ineligible for resentencing under the Act; (2) the Court of Appeal's prior opinion did not show he was ineligible under the Act; and (3) he was entitled to have a jury determine his eligibility under the Act. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order finding defendant ineligible for resentencing under the Act. View "California v. Guilford" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court in this case to enter judgment validating the authorization of a bond issuance for the purposes of the 2008 voter-approved Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act. Questions regarding the project the Authority sought to build was the one voters approved in 2008. Furthermore, the Authority left substantial financial and environmental questions unanswered with regard to the final funding plan required for each corridor or useable segment of the project. In its review, the Court of Appeal concluded: (1) contrary to the trial court’s determination, the High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee properly found that issuance of bonds for the project was necessary or desirable; and (2) The preliminary section 2704.08, subdivision (c) funding plan was intended to provide guidance to the Legislature in acting on the Authority’s appropriation request. Because the Legislature appropriated bond proceeds following receipt of the preliminary funding plan approved by the Authority, the preliminary funding plan has served its purpose. "A writ of mandamus will not lie to compel the idle act of rescinding and redoing it." View "Cal. High-Speed Rail v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Carl McIntyre, Destiny McIntyre (through her guardian ad litem), Theresa McIntyre, and My Jeweler, Inc. appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of The Colonies-Pacific, LLC. Colonies owns the Colonies Crossroads shopping center in Upland. The common areas of the shopping center were under Colonies's exclusive control, but maintenance expenses were chargeable to tenants on a pro rata basis. Initially, Colonies did not budget anything for security services. McIntyre owned a jewelry business called My Jeweler. In January 2006, two stores in Colonies Crossroads were robbed at gunpoint, eight days apart. In May 2006, there was a shoplifting incident at another store, which police reportedly classified as a robbery because it resulted in a physical altercation in which the perpetrator pulled out a knife. After the first two robberies, McIntyre expressed concern several times about the lack of security to Leanne Meissner, an employee of Colonies's property management company. Meissner reported the robberies to her superior, but Colonies decided not to provide security or seek anchor tenants' approval of an expense for security. Rather, Colonies asked the Upland Police Department to "step up the patrol through the center" because it believed "the police are much more capable than the . . . private security force." McIntyre took his then 14-year-old daughter, Destiny, to work with him at the Colonies Crossroads store on summer morning in 2006. Shortly after the store opened, three men entered. Despite offering his cooperation, the men severely pistol whipped McIntyre, and one of them tied up Destiny and held a gun to her head. The men shattered glass display cases and stole jewelry, cash and digital security recording equipment. After this robbery, Colonies hired a security service to provide an unarmed guard to patrol the common areas of the shopping center. The McIntyres sued Colonies for negligence and premises liability, a species of negligence. At the beginning of trial, Colonies brought a motion in limine under section 1151 to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures. The McIntyres argued section 1151 was inapplicable because they did not intend to use the evidence to show Colonies was negligent by breaching its duty of care, but rather to show the lack of a security patrol was the cause of the robbery. The McIntyres contended the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence. Alternatively, the McIntyres contended the court abused its discretion by not admitting the evidence as rebuttal to a comment Colonies's attorney made during opening statement. The Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment. View "McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific" on Justia Law

OSSC provided nonemergency services to a participant of a health plan covered by CalPERS and CalPERS paid OSSC a small portion of the amount charged for services. OSSC claims that it is entitled to receive its higher customary and usual rate. The trial court sustained CalPERS's demurrer without leave to amend. The court concluded that an oral promise cannot be enforced against a government agency like CalPERS. Accordingly, the demurrer was properly sustained without leave to amend and the court affirmed the judgment of dismissal. View "Orthopedic Specialists v. CalPERS" on Justia Law

Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) was sued in a coordinated proceeding before the San Francisco Superior Court for alleged defects in Plavix, a drug BMS manufactures and sells throughout the country. BMS moved below to quash service of the summons regarding the complaints concerning plaintiffs who are not California residents, for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied BMS’s motion, finding that California had general jurisdiction over BMS, and did not address the issue of specific jurisdiction. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) which limited the application of general jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment, the California Supreme Court remanded to the court of appeals, which affirmed denial of the motion to quash. California does not have general jurisdiction over BMS in this case, but, applying the International Shoe Co. v. Washington test of “fair play and substantial justice,” the court reasoned that BMS has engaged in substantial, continuous economic activity in California, including the sale of more than a billion dollars of Plavix to Californians. That activity is substantially connected to claims by non-residents, which are based on the same alleged wrongs as those alleged by California-resident plaintiffs. BMS has not established that it would be unreasonable to assert jurisdiction over it. View "Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a tenured teacher, was dismissed based on charges that he had physically and abusively disciplined his students. Plaintiff contended that the Board's failure to consider or formulate written charges before initiating his dismissal nullified all further proceedings. The trial court subsequently denied plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate, finding that the board's failure to consider or formulate charges before initiating plaintiff's dismissal was a nonsubstantive procedural error that was not prejudicial. The court concluded that plaintiff's informal notification of charges, eventual receipt of written charges, representation by counsel, involvement in the discovery process and participation in a four-day evidentiary hearing confirmed he was provided notice and a full opportunity to oppose the charges. Plaintiff has not shown the board's reliance on oral presentation of charges in initiating his dismissal undermined his preparation or otherwise prejudiced his defense. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying his mandate petition and the court affirmed the judgment. View "DeYoung v. Com. on Professional Competence" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant-appellant Christopher London guilty as charged of cultivating marijuana and possessing marijuana for sale. He was sentenced to three years’ probation, subject to terms and conditions including that he serve 60 days in jail. At trial, defendant claimed he was lawfully growing 100 marijuana plants for a medical marijuana collective under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (the MMPA) and was therefore not guilty of unlawful marijuana cultivation, possession for sale, or the lesser included offense of marijuana possession. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal addressed defendant’s claims that the trial court erred in refusing to allow his cannabis expert to give opinion testimony critical to his lawful cultivation defense, including that defendant was lawfully cultivating the marijuana under the MMPA and that a $20,000 sum he expected to be paid for his 100 marijuana plants, when fully grown, did not include an unlawful profit. The Court of Appeal concluded the expert’s testimony on these and other points was properly excluded because the expert lacked sufficient evidence to render the opinions. With regard to defendant’s additional claim that the court erroneously instructed the jury on his lawful cultivation defense under the MMPA., the Court agreed the instructions misstated the applicable law under the MMPA, but concluded defendant did not produce sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt he was lawfully growing the 100 marijuana plants for himself and other qualified patients, and he was not earning a profit. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence to support instructing the jury on defendant’s MMPA defense. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment. View "California v. London" on Justia Law

After Loren Collin was diagnosed with mesothelioma, he and his wife Verna Lee Collin sued 22 entities for negligence, strict liability, false representation, intentional tort/failure to warn, alter ego, and loss of consortium, alleging Loren was exposed to asbestos from the defendants' products or activities when he worked in various construction trades. Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of four defendants: CalPortland Company, Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (J-MM), and Formosa Plastics Corporation USA, named as an alter ego of J-MM. Plaintiff argued those defendants did not show that plaintiff did not possess and could not reasonably obtain evidence of exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which defendants were responsible; but even if the burden shifted to plaintiff, the evidence was sufficient to support an inference of exposure. Plaintiff also claimed J-MM and Formosa did not establish that Loren was a sophisticated user who knew or should have known of the potential risks and dangers of using J-MM’s asbestos cement pipe. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded summary judgment was proper as to CalPortland and Kaiser Gypsum, because they met their initial burdens on summary judgment and the evidence and reasonable inferences would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding that Loren was exposed to one of their asbestos-containing products. With respect to J-MM and Formosa, however, summary judgment was not proper: the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to whether Loren was exposed to asbestos from a J-MM product. In addition, J-MM and Formosa did not establish they were entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law based on the sophisticated user defense. View "Collin v. CalPortland Co." on Justia Law