Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this marital dissolution action, David Oyster appealed from a limited judgment on a reserved issue. The court rejected Oyster's contention that the 2006 stipulated judgment could not be admitted into evidence in the 2011 dissolution proceedings because it resulted from mediation, and was thus confidential under Evidence Code section 1116; by providing that the court would enforce the agreement and they would be bound by it, the parties clearly demonstrated that they did not intend that it remain confidential; and the court rejected Oyster's contention that a stipulated judgment created only for one case could not become the basis for a judgment in a subsequent case where Oyster cited no authority for his contention and, at any rate, nothing in the record suggested that the stipulated judgment here was intended to be limited to the original divorce proceedings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re Marriage of Daly and Oyster" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant Steven Hernandez of having committed vandalism causing less than $400 in damages. Because the jury also found the vandalism was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, the crime was a felony. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The Court of Appeal appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts of the case and, while not arguing against defendant, counsel’s opening brief stated he could not find any arguable issues to raise, though he did suggest some issues for the Court's consideration in conducting an independent review of the record. The Court declined to do so and published this opinion to reaffirm its long-standing rejection of "Anders/Wende" briefs presenting "'arguable-but-unmeritorious’ issue[s].'" View "California v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Louis Van Leonard and Charles Dwayne Walser of two counts each of pimping, two counts each of pandering, and one count each of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. The jury also convicted Leonard of one count of making a criminal threat. Following a bench trial, the court found Leonard had a prior prison term, a prior serious felony conviction, and a "[s]trike prior" conviction. The court ordered that Leonard's prison prior be stricken for purposes of sentencing. Furthermore, the court stayed punishment on Leonard's and Walser's convictions for pimping. Leonard was ultimately sentenced to 23 years in prison, and Walser was sentenced to eight years four months. Both Leonard and Walser appealed, contending: (1) the operative amended information at trial was not properly filed; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the defendants' convictions on certain counts; (3) the court erred in not giving a unanimity instruction on pandering; (4) the court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding the culture of pimping and pandering; (5) the court erred in limiting cross-examination of the victims regarding their bias and credibility; (6) the defendants' sentences on their assault convictions and on Leonard's criminal threat conviction should have been stayed under section 654 [of the Penal Code]; (7) the court abused its discretion by declining to dismiss Leonard's "strike prior" under "California v. Superior Court (Romero)" (13 Cal.4th 497 (1996)); and (8) the judgment against Leonard erroneously stated that his prison prior was stayed by the court. The Court of Appeal modified the judgment against Leonard to provide that his prison prior was stricken by the court, rather than stayed, and affirmed it as modified. The Court affirmed the judgment against Walser in full. View "California v. Leonard" on Justia Law

The health care service plan in this case, Kaiser Permanente, covered three patients who received care at an emergency room operated by Dameron Hospital Association. The patients were injured due to the negligence of third party tortfeasors who had automobile liability insurance with California Automobile Association Inter-insurance Bureau (AAA) and Allstate Insurance Company. Unlike Kaiser, neither AAA nor Allstate had contracts with Dameron. In the absence of an agreement for negotiated billing rates, Dameron sought to collect from AAA and Allstate its customary billing rates by asserting liens filed under the Hospital Lien Act (HLA). AAA and Allstate, however, ignored Dameron’s HLA liens when paying settlements to the three Kaiser patients. Upon learning of the settlements, Dameron sued AAA and Allstate to recover on its HLA liens. The trial court granted insurers’ motions for summary judgment on grounds the patients’ debts had already been fully satisfied by their health care service plans. Reasoning the HLA liens were extinguished for lack of any underlying debt, the trial court dismissed the case. The trial court further found dismissal was warranted because Dameron failed to timely file some of its HLA liens against AAA. The question this case presented to the Court of Appeal was whether the health care service plan’s payment of a previously negotiated rate for emergency room services insulated the tortfeasor’s automobile liability insurer from having to pay the customary rate for medical care rendered. AAA and Allstate argued they were not responsible for any amount after Kaiser paid in full the bill for the emergency room services provided by Dameron. Dameron argued that it contracted with Kaiser to preserve its rights to recover the customary billing rates from tortfeasors and their automobile liability insurers, and that the tortfeasors and their liability insurers were responsible for the entire bill for medical services at the customary rate - not just the difference between the reimbursement received from Kaiser and the customary billing rate. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Dameron/Kaiser contract did not contain the term described by case law as sufficient to preserve the right to recover the customary billing rate for emergency room services from third party tortfeasors. Consequently, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of AAA and Allstate. View "Dameron Hosp. Assn. v. AAA Nor. Cal., Nev. & Utah Ins. Exc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit the crime of communicating with a prisoner without permission (count 1) and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (count 2). The court reversed the conviction as to count 2 based on insufficiency of evidence where the Attorney General has not demonstrated how the alleged conspiracy to bring tobacco into a state prison perverts or obstructs justice or the due administration of the laws. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "People v. Redd" on Justia Law

Plaintiff seeks to set aside the county's decision to allow a development. The court concluded, among other things, that the developer, an indispensable party, may assert the statute of limitations even though it did not comply with the so-called fictitious name statute, Business and Professions Code section 17900. Plaintiff filed a petition for mandate and administrative mandate attacking the county's decision approving a subdivision application, but failed to serve the real party in interest within 90 days pursuant to Government Code section 66499.37. The trial court sustained the county's and the real party in interest's demurrers without leave to amend. Because the court affirmed the judgment on the merits, the court need not consider defendants' motion to dismiss based on defects in plaintiffs' opening brief. The court denied plaintiffs' request for judicial notice. View "Templeton Action Com. v. County of San Luis Obispo" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant Christian Castillo of possessing methamphetamine for sale and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred when it denied a pretrial request to enforce a negotiated disposition because there was agreement for the court to enforce, that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and that the trial court should not have denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence of statements he made to police as having been taken in violation of his Miranda rights. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Castillo" on Justia Law

Grossman submitted a request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code, 6250) and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance for documents relating to San Francisco Ethics Commission regulations governing complaints alleging violations of the ordinance. Grossman requested drafts of Sunshine Ordinance regulations, a September 2012 staff report about the regulations, and all documents relating to “[t]he preparation, review, revision and distribution of all prior drafts and final versions of the Draft Amendments and Staff Report, including, without limitation, emails, memoranda, notes, letters or other correspondence or communications to or from the San Francisco City Attorney, any Deputy City Attorney or any other person in the Office of the San Francisco City Attorney.” The Commission produced more than 120 documents, six of which were partially redacted, but withheld other documents as protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine, including: 15 requests from commission staff to the city attorney’s office for legal advice about proposed regulations and nine responses by the city attorney’s office, providing advice about the proposed regulations. Grossman successfully sought a writ of mandate, arguing that the Sunshine Ordinance compels disclosure of the documents, even if they would otherwise be protected by privilege. The court of appeal ruled in favor of the commission. The city’s charter incorporates the attorney-client privilege and supersedes any contrary ordinance provision. View "St. Croix v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

CODE appealed the superior court's denial of a petition for writ of mandamus to set aside an environmental impact report (EIR) certification and project approval on the grounds that Mitigation Measure 4.8-8 was ineffective and respondents failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq. The EIR concerned North Sky River and Jawbone's application to rezone and for a conditional use permit for mobile concrete batch plants in order to build and operate a wind farm in the Tehachcapi Wind Resource Area. The court concluded: (1) as a matter of law, the County's EIR described a legally feasible mitigation measure; (2) as a matter of law, the County was not required to respond to late comments; (3) substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that MM 4.8-8 mitigated significant impacts on aviation safety; and (4) the Board was not required to consider either CODE's proffered mitigation measure or the EIR's "environmentally superior alternative." Accordingly, the court affirmed the superior court's order denying CODE's petition for a writ of mandamus. View "Citizens Opposing A Dangerous Environ. v. Co. of Kern" on Justia Law

Petitioner-defendant Floyd Lowe was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced under the "Three Strikes" law more than 15 years ago. He petitioned for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. The trial court denied the petition because defendant was armed with a firearm and intended to cause great bodily injury when he possessed the firearm. Treating defendant's appeal of the denial of his petition for resentencing as a petition for writ of mandate, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not err and denied the petition for writ of mandate. View "Lowe v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law