Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for a new vehicle, which later exhibited multiple defects. Despite several repair attempts, the issues persisted. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking various forms of relief including replacement or restitution, damages, and attorney fees.The case proceeded to trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the jury found the defendant liable and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, the jury did not find the defendant’s violation to be willful, thus no civil penalties were awarded. Subsequently, both parties filed motions regarding costs and attorney fees. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, limiting the plaintiff to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and awarding the defendant post-offer costs based on a prior settlement offer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court addressed two main issues: whether a section 998 offer consisting of two simultaneous offers is valid, and whether an offer that promises to pay for statutory categories of damages with disputes resolved by a third party is sufficiently certain. The court concluded that simultaneous offers are generally invalid under section 998 due to the uncertainty they create for the trial court in determining whether the judgment is more favorable than the offer. However, since only one of the defendant’s two offers was invalid, the remaining valid offer was operative. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was limited to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and the defendant was entitled to post-offer costs. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2016, the plaintiff purchased a shopping center from the defendants, which included a dry cleaning business. Before the sale, the defendants provided a 2013 visual inspection report but did not disclose a more detailed soil vapor survey report, which the plaintiff later discovered. After the purchase, the plaintiff incurred significant costs for cleaning up hazardous substances found in the soil. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had withheld critical information about the property's condition.The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in 2018, alleging fraud and violations of the Civil Code. During discovery, the defendants served requests for admission, which the plaintiff failed to respond to on time. The defendants moved to have the requests deemed admitted. The plaintiff later served a response with objections, but the trial court deemed the responses non-compliant and granted the defendants' motion, imposing sanctions. The plaintiff's subsequent motion to withdraw the deemed admissions was denied for failing to show mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the presence of waived objections in the plaintiff's proposed response did not necessarily prevent substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. The court found that the trial court had erred in its interpretation of the statute and that the plaintiff's responses were substantially compliant. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, including vacating the order deeming the requests admitted, reconsidering sanctions, and allowing additional discovery. The plaintiff was awarded costs for the appeal. View "Katayama v. Continental Investment Group" on Justia Law

A 17-year-old, M.L., challenged a civil harassment restraining order issued to protect E.G., a former romantic partner of M.L.’s mother. E.G. sought the order after M.L. posted E.G.’s personal information on social media, alleging E.G. supported M.L.’s mother in abusive conduct against M.L. and her younger brother. The restraining order prohibited M.L. from publishing E.G.’s contact information online and from defaming or harassing her. M.L. contended there was no clear and convincing evidence of harassment and argued that the trial court failed to consider circumstances making future harassment unlikely.The Santa Cruz County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order and later a three-year civil harassment restraining order against M.L. The court found that M.L.’s social media posts, which included E.G.’s contact information and accusations of supporting child abuse, constituted harassment. The court concluded that E.G. had met her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and that the harassment was likely to continue without a restraining order.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the restraining order, including M.L.’s repeated social media posts and the resulting threats and harassment E.G. received from third parties. The court concluded that M.L.’s conduct was not for a legitimate purpose and was not constitutionally protected. However, the court modified the restraining order to expire on M.L.’s 18th birthday, reasoning that the circumstances leading to the harassment were tied to M.L.’s status as a minor and her parents' custody dispute. The order was affirmed as modified. View "E.G. v. M.L." on Justia Law

A lawyer representing an environmental group sought disability accommodations under California Rule of Court 1.100 due to his bipolar disorder. The accommodations requested included extensions of time for briefing deadlines and relief from procedural obligations in a case challenging the approval of a timber harvest plan by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). The trial court had previously granted six similar requests over eight months but denied the seventh request, leading to this appeal.The Sonoma County Superior Court had partially granted the environmental group's petition for a writ of mandate, finding deficiencies in CalFIRE's approval of the timber harvest plan regarding geologic, biologic, and cultural resources. However, the court rejected the group's claim that CalFIRE's delayed and incomplete response to public comments rendered the approval defective. Dissatisfied with this partial victory, the group appealed, arguing that the trial court's denial of the seventh accommodation request prevented a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the seventh request for accommodation. The court noted that the trial court had already granted multiple extensions and that further delays would create an undue burden and fundamentally alter the nature of the expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) proceeding. The appellate court emphasized that the environmental group had the option to retain additional counsel to avoid further delays, which it failed to do. The judgment was affirmed, and the respondents were awarded their costs on appeal. View "Friends of the So. Fork Gualala v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection" on Justia Law

A woman named Lisa was under a conservatorship due to being gravely disabled from a mental disorder. Her father, Scott, was appointed as her conservator and placed her in a skilled nursing facility. Scott signed two optional arbitration agreements with the facility on Lisa's behalf. After Lisa died, her parents sued the facility's owners and operators, alleging various claims including wrongful death. The defendants sought to compel arbitration based on the agreements Scott signed.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the petition to compel arbitration. The court found no evidence that Scott had the authority to bind Lisa to the arbitration agreements for the successor claims. Additionally, the court found that neither Scott nor Lisa's mother, Marilyn, signed the agreements in their individual capacities, thus the wrongful death claim was not subject to arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the conservatorship order did not give Scott the authority to sign the arbitration agreements on Lisa's behalf. The court reasoned that the conservatorship order did not explicitly or implicitly authorize Scott to waive Lisa's right to a jury trial. Furthermore, the court found that the wrongful death claim was not subject to arbitration because Scott did not sign the agreements in his individual capacity, and Marilyn did not sign them at all. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, denying the petition to compel arbitration. View "Enmark v. KC Community Care" on Justia Law

Joseph Mayor, a petitioner, sought a writ of mandate to direct the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) to rescind its order granting Ross Valley Sanitation District’s (Ross Valley) petition for reconsideration of an award of permanent disability. Mayor had been awarded total permanent disability by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) due to an industrial injury. Ross Valley filed a petition for reconsideration, but the Board acted on it more than 60 days after it was filed, which Mayor argued exceeded the Board’s jurisdiction under former section 5909 of the Labor Code.The WCJ issued the award on March 2, 2023, and Ross Valley filed for reconsideration on March 23, 2023. The Board did not act within the 60-day period mandated by former section 5909, which stated that a petition is deemed denied if not acted upon within 60 days. On August 14, 2023, the Board granted the petition for reconsideration, citing administrative irregularities and delays in receiving the petition. Mayor then filed for a writ of mandate, arguing that the Board lost jurisdiction after the 60-day period lapsed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Mayor, referencing the recent decision in Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., which held that the Board’s action after 60 days exceeded its jurisdiction. The court noted that the Legislature had amended section 5909 to start the 60-day deadline from when the Board receives the case file, not when the petition is filed, but this amendment did not apply retroactively. The court granted Mayor’s petition, directing the Board to rescind its orders and confirming that the WCJ’s award of permanent disability was final. View "Mayor v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Dignity Health, operating as French Hospital Medical Center, filed a complaint against orthopedic surgeon Troy I. Mounts, M.D., and his corporation to recover an advance paid under their Physician Recruitment Agreement. Mounts filed a cross-complaint alleging retaliation for his complaints about patient care quality, interference with his economic opportunities, and unlawful business practices. Dignity responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court initially denied. The appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case for further consideration.Upon remand, the trial court concluded that Mounts had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court found that Dignity's actions were protected by the litigation privilege, the common interest privilege, and were barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the court granted Dignity's motion to strike the cross-complaint and ordered Mounts to pay Dignity's attorney fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that all of Mounts' claims were based on conduct protected by the litigation privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (b)) and the common interest privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (c)). The court also found that Dignity's actions were immune under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 11137) and that some claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court upheld the trial court's orders granting the motion to strike and awarding attorney fees to Dignity. View "Dignity Health v. Mounts" on Justia Law

Jose Cardona appealed a trial court order granting Karina Soto, the mother of his child, a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against him. The DVRO, which expired in November 2023, protected Soto and their daughter. The appeal was not moot despite the DVRO’s expiration because the finding of domestic violence created a five-year statutory presumption against Cardona’s custody of their daughter.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially granted the DVRO based on an incident where Cardona, while drunk, beat his current wife in the presence of their daughter, who he also slapped. Soto claimed Cardona had verbally abused their daughter and forced her to carry his gun on multiple occasions. Cardona admitted to the incident but denied ongoing abuse and claimed Soto was lying to gain full custody. During the hearing, the court interviewed the daughter in chambers without the parties present, and the interview was not reported or documented.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, found that Cardona’s due process rights were violated because he was not informed of the substance of his daughter’s testimony and thus could not respond to it. The court emphasized that while in-chambers interviews of minors are permissible, there must be safeguards to ensure the parent can respond to the testimony. The failure to make any record of the daughter’s testimony left the evidentiary basis for the DVRO unreviewable on appeal. Consequently, the court reversed the DVRO due to the due process violation, though it did not preclude future reliance on other evidence of domestic violence presented. View "Cardona v Soto" on Justia Law

In April 2020, the City of Upland approved the development of a 201,096 square-foot warehouse/parcel delivery service building. The City adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upland Community First (UCF) filed a petition for a writ of mandate, claiming the project violated CEQA due to potential significant impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, traffic, and air quality. UCF argued that an environmental impact report (EIR) should have been prepared.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted UCF’s petition, finding insufficient evidence to support the City’s use of two quantitative thresholds for measuring the project’s cumulative impacts on GHG emissions. The court ordered the City to set aside its resolutions approving the MND and other project approvals to address the sufficiency of evidence supporting the City’s threshold of significance for GHG emissions. Both UCF and Bridge Development Partners, LLC, the project developer, appealed the judgment.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that substantial evidence supported the City’s use of the 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2 e/yr.) threshold for measuring the significance of the project’s GHG emissions. The court concluded that the project’s GHG emissions would be below this threshold, thus not significantly impacting the environment. The court also found no merit in UCF’s claims regarding the project’s impacts on traffic, air quality, and GHG emissions. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and directed the lower court to enter judgment in favor of the City and Bridge. View "Upland Community First v. City of Upland" on Justia Law

Daniel McCurry and Carie Powell sued Dr. Inder Singh for malpractice, alleging he violated a duty of care by refusing to treat their mother, Carol McCurry, who died while awaiting transfer to another hospital. Carol was brought to Methodist Hospital with shortness of breath and was diagnosed with an aortic dissection and a possible heart attack. Dr. Michael Brandon, the treating emergency physician, consulted Dr. Singh, an on-call interventional cardiologist at Mercy General Hospital. Dr. Singh initially agreed that Carol needed acute catheterization but later decided she was not a candidate for the procedure. Consequently, Dr. Singh did not accept her transfer, and Carol died before she could be transferred to another facility.The Superior Court of Sacramento County granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Singh, ruling that he did not owe a duty of care to Carol because no physician-patient relationship existed between them. The court found that Dr. Singh did not affirmatively treat or directly advise Carol, and thus, no legal duty was established.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that a physician's duty of care arises only when a physician-patient relationship is established, which did not occur in this case. Dr. Singh's consultation with Dr. Brandon and his decision not to treat Carol did not create such a relationship. The court also declined to apply the reasoning from an Arizona case cited by the plaintiffs, emphasizing that under California law, the duty of care is contingent upon the existence of a physician-patient relationship. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Singh was affirmed. View "McCurry v. Singh" on Justia Law