Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Andrea Klein Gregg and the Huntsman-West Foundation (the Foundation) sued Melinda Susan Smith for general negligence, intentional tort, and premises liability after Gregg's personal property, stored at Dennis James Babcock's residence, went missing. Babcock, who lived alone on the premises, had allowed Gregg to store her items there. When their relationship ended, Gregg was initially denied access to retrieve her property. Upon gaining access, she found most of her property missing or damaged.The Superior Court of Riverside County granted Smith's motion for summary judgment, finding she had no duty to protect the personal property as she had no control over the premises or the property. The court also sustained Smith's evidentiary objections, excluding much of the plaintiffs' evidence as hearsay or lacking foundation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that Smith had no legal duty to the plaintiffs regarding the personal property. The court found that Smith had no control over the premises or the property and that the plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact. The court also held that the claims of agency, mutual interest, joint venture, and ratification were not properly raised in the complaint and could not be considered.The main holding was that Smith owed no duty to the plaintiffs regarding the personal property, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment in her favor. The court also affirmed the exclusion of the plaintiffs' evidence and the rejection of new legal theories not raised in the original complaint. View "Huntsman-West Foundation v. Smith" on Justia Law

The case involves a long-standing employment discrimination dispute between a well-known columnist, T.J. Simers, and his former employer, Los Angeles Times Communications LLC. Simers was demoted in 2013 and subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging constructive termination and age and disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The litigation spanned nine years and included three jury trials. The first trial resulted in a mixed verdict, with the jury awarding significant economic and noneconomic damages. However, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the constructive termination claim and ordered a new trial on noneconomic damages. Both parties appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's orders, necessitating a second trial.In the second trial, the jury awarded Simers $15.4 million in noneconomic damages, but the trial court granted a new trial due to misconduct by Simers's counsel during closing arguments and the excessive nature of the damages awarded. The third trial focused solely on the amount of noneconomic damages, resulting in a $1.25 million award, which matched a pre-trial settlement offer made by the defendant.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County awarded Simers $3,264,906 in attorney fees and $210,882.55 in costs, but excluded fees and costs incurred after the defendant's settlement offer. The defendant appealed, arguing that fees for the second trial and the unsuccessful appeal should not be awarded due to counsel's misconduct and the unrelated nature of the work. The plaintiff cross-appealed, seeking recovery of appellate fees despite the trial court's ruling.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court's order. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in awarding fees for the second trial and the appeal, noting that the trial court had considered the misconduct and the overall reasonableness of the fees. The court also upheld the exclusion of post-offer fees and costs, in line with statutory requirements under section 998. View "Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC" on Justia Law

Sutter’s Place, Inc., which operates Bay 101 Casino, challenged the City of San Jose's annual cardroom regulation fee, arguing it was an unconstitutional tax imposed without voter approval and violated due process. The fee was equally divided between Bay 101 and Casino M8trix, the only two cardrooms in the city. The plaintiff contended that the fee included costs outside the constitutional exception for regulatory charges and that the equal allocation was unfair.The Santa Clara County Superior Court held a bench trial and found the fee valid, covering reasonable regulatory costs and fairly allocated between the cardrooms. The court determined the fee was for regulatory functions, the amount was necessary to cover costs, and the equal allocation was reasonable given the equal number of tables and benefits to both cardrooms. The court also excluded certain expert testimony from the plaintiff and denied a separate due process trial.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It upheld the trial court's finding that the equal allocation of the fee was reasonable but reversed the judgment on other grounds. The appellate court found the trial court erred by not specifically determining whether all costs included in the fee fell within the constitutional exception for regulatory charges. The case was remanded for the trial court to identify and exclude any non-permissible costs from the fee and to conduct further proceedings on the due process claim if necessary. The appellate court also reversed the award of costs to the city and directed the trial court to reassess costs after applying the correct legal standards. View "Sutter's Place, Inc. v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

Joseph Mayor, a worker injured in December 2013 while employed by Ross Valley Sanitation District, was awarded total permanent disability by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 2, 2023. Ross Valley filed a petition for reconsideration with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) on March 23, 2023. The Board did not act on the petition within the 60-day period mandated by former section 5909 of the Labor Code, which stated that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied if not acted upon within 60 days of filing.The Board issued an order granting Ross Valley’s petition for reconsideration on August 14, 2023, 144 days after the petition was filed. Mayor requested a hearing to enforce the WCJ’s award and subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the Board lost jurisdiction over the matter 60 days after the petition was filed. The Board issued a revised order on February 2, 2024, rescinding the WCJ’s award and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, citing an administrative irregularity that delayed the Board’s receipt of the petition.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Mayor and the recent decision in Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2023) that the Board’s action after 60 days exceeded its jurisdiction. The court held that former section 5909 was mandatory and that the Board’s failure to act within the 60-day period resulted in the petition being denied by operation of law. Consequently, the court granted Mayor’s petition and issued a writ of mandate directing the Board to rescind its orders granting reconsideration and to reinstate the WCJ’s award of permanent disability. View "Mayor v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law

In a juvenile wardship proceeding, the minor's counsel declared a doubt about the minor's competency to stand trial. Consequently, the juvenile court suspended the proceedings and referred the minor for a competency evaluation. The court's protocol mandated the disclosure of the minor's mental health records to the court-appointed expert for evaluation. The minor objected, citing the psychotherapist-patient privilege under California Evidence Code section 1014. The court overruled the objection and ordered the disclosure, prompting the minor to file a writ petition challenging this decision.The Contra Costa County Superior Court overruled the minor's objection, stating that Welfare and Institutions Code section 709 permits the compelled disclosure of all available records, including mental health records, for competency evaluations. The court also referenced Evidence Code section 1025, which it interpreted as allowing such disclosures in competency proceedings. The minor's request for a stay to seek appellate review was denied, leading to the filing of the writ petition.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Evidence Code section 1016 renders the psychotherapist-patient privilege inapplicable in juvenile competency proceedings once the minor's counsel declares a doubt about the minor's competency. The court reasoned that the issue of the minor's mental or emotional condition is tendered by the minor through their counsel, thus falling under the patient-litigant exception to the privilege. The court denied the minor's writ petition and dissolved the partial stay of the juvenile court's order. View "T.M. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 2017, Riverside Mining Limited (Riverside Mining) leased 73 acres of its property to Quality Aggregates (Quality) for mining. By 2020, disputes arose, leading Quality to sue Riverside Mining in 2021 for breach of contract, trespass, and quiet title. In 2022, Riverside Mining filed an unlawful detainer action to evict Quality for alleged lease breaches. The parties agreed that Quality would deposit monthly rent payments with the court during the litigation. Quality later made a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, which Riverside Mining did not accept. Riverside Mining then dismissed the unlawful detainer action without prejudice.The Superior Court of Riverside County dismissed the unlawful detainer action and later addressed two motions: Quality's motion for attorney fees under section 998 and Riverside Mining's motion to disburse the deposited rent payments. The court denied Quality's motion for attorney fees and granted Riverside Mining's motion for disbursement.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decisions. It held that Quality was not entitled to attorney fees under section 998 because Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2), precludes awarding attorney fees when an action is voluntarily dismissed. The court also affirmed the disbursement of the deposited funds to Riverside Mining, as Quality had no right to a setoff for attorney fees. The court's main holding was that section 998 does not independently authorize attorney fees without an underlying statutory or contractual right, and Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2), prevents such an award in cases of voluntary dismissal. View "Riverside Mining Limited v. Quality Aggregates" on Justia Law

The case involves the Old Creek Ranch Winery, owned by Holguin Family Ventures, LLC, and leased by OCRW, Inc. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors found that the appellants violated the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance by expanding the winery and wine-tasting area without a conditional use permit (CUP) and changing the principal use of the ranch from crop production to a wine tasting/event venue. The Board also denied their request for zoning clearance for a paved parking lot and electric vehicle charging stations.The trial court upheld the Board's decision, applying the substantial evidence standard of review. The court found that the appellants had converted the property’s principal use from crop and wine production to a commercial wine bar and event space. The court also denied appellants' motion to amend their complaint to add a new cause of action for declaratory relief and dismissed their remaining cause of action for inverse condemnation.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the substantial evidence standard was appropriate and found that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision. The court also upheld the trial court's denial of the motion to amend the complaint, concluding that the proposed new cause of action was unnecessary and that the delay in filing the motion was unjustified. Additionally, the court ruled that the Outdoor Events Ordinance did not apply to the winery, as it was separately regulated under the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.The main holding is that the substantial evidence standard of review was correctly applied, and substantial evidence supports the Board's findings of zoning violations and the denial of the zoning clearance for the parking lot and charging stations. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint. The judgment was affirmed. View "Holguin Family Ventures v. County of Ventura" on Justia Law

The case involves the removal of a newborn child, N., from her mother, C.J., due to the mother's substance abuse and mental health issues. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) placed N. with a foster caregiver, who was a trial attorney for the County Counsel’s office. Maternal aunt (aunt) requested placement of N. shortly after her birth, but DCFS failed to assess her for over a year despite repeated requests from mother’s counsel, N.’s counsel, and aunt herself. During this period, visitation between N. and her family was severely limited, with the caregiver dictating the visitation schedule.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County repeatedly ordered DCFS to assess aunt for placement, but DCFS did not comply. Eventually, aunt’s home was approved for placement, but DCFS still did not move N. to aunt’s care, deferring to the caregiver’s objections. By the time the court considered aunt for placement, over a year had passed, and the court found it was too late to apply the relative placement preference. The court also found that it was not in N.’s best interest to move her due to her bond with the caregiver.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that DCFS’s delays in evaluating aunt for placement and the court’s lackluster response to the family’s pleas for supportive services were prejudicial. The court concluded that the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the relative placement preference under section 361.3 and that the error was prejudicial. The appellate court reversed the order terminating mother’s reunification services, the order denying mother’s section 361.3 motion, and the order terminating her parental rights, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also directed DCFS and the juvenile court to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements. View "In re N.J." on Justia Law

The City of Ontario filed an eminent domain action to acquire properties owned by We Buy Houses Any Condition, LLC, located near the Ontario International Airport. The City argued that the properties did not conform to land use requirements and suffered from airport-related impacts and blight. The City held a public hearing and adopted a resolution of necessity to commence eminent domain proceedings, citing the mitigation of airport impacts and elimination of blight as public uses. However, the resolution did not describe any specific proposed project.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted summary judgment in favor of We Buy Houses, finding that the City had not articulated a proposed project as required to exercise its power of eminent domain. The court concluded that the City’s resolution of necessity was insufficient because it did not describe a specific project, which is necessary to determine public interest, necessity, and compatibility with the greatest public good and least private injury. The court also granted We Buy Houses’s request for attorney fees, making certain reductions to the requested amounts.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that the City failed to identify a proposed project with sufficient specificity in its resolution of necessity, as required by the Eminent Domain Law. The court found the City’s arguments unpersuasive and concluded that the trial court properly rejected the City’s effort to exercise eminent domain. Additionally, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of attorney fees to We Buy Houses, affirming the fee award. View "City of Ontario v. We Buy Houses Any Condition" on Justia Law

In 2019, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 218 (AB 218), which allowed plaintiffs to bring childhood sexual assault claims against public entities within a three-year window, even if those claims were previously barred by statutes of limitations or claim presentation requirements. A.M.M. filed a complaint against the West Contra Costa Unified School District, alleging sexual assaults by a District employee from 1979 to 1983. The District argued that reviving such claims constituted an unconstitutional gift of public funds under the California Constitution. The trial court overruled the District’s demurrer, leading the District to seek writ review.The trial court sustained the demurrer for the first three causes of action but overruled it regarding the gift clause argument. The District then petitioned the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, for a writ of mandate to sustain the demurrer in its entirety. The appellate court issued an order to show cause, and both parties filed responses, including amicus curiae briefs from various entities.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held that AB 218’s retroactive waiver of the claim presentation requirement did not constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds. The court reasoned that the waiver did not create new substantive liability but merely removed a procedural barrier to existing claims. The court also found that AB 218 served a valid public purpose by providing relief to victims of childhood sexual assault, aligning with the state’s interest in public welfare. Additionally, the court ruled that the District lacked standing to assert due process claims under both the federal and California Constitutions. The petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court" on Justia Law