Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute between ex-spouses Robert Bassi and Susan Bassi. After their divorce, Susan sent a series of e-mails to Robert, which he claimed were harassing and disturbed his peace. These e-mails were related to Susan's intent to file a federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) action against Robert and others. In response, Robert filed a petition for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Susan. Susan then filed an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion, arguing that her e-mails were protected free speech and litigation correspondence. The trial court denied Susan's anti-SLAPP motion, finding that several of the e-mails were not privileged or protected speech, and that Robert had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his DVRO petition.The trial court's decision was based on the conclusion that several of Susan's e-mails were not protected activity as contemplated by the anti-SLAPP statute. The court also found that even if Susan did meet her burden at the first step, the motion would fail because Robert had met his burden of demonstrating a probability of success on the merits of his DVRO petition. The court noted that it had previously found, in granting the requested temporary personal conduct and stay-away order, that Robert’s petition was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for a permanent DVRO under the applicable Family Code provisions.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District affirmed the trial court's order. The appellate court found that while some of Susan's e-mails were protected under the anti-SLAPP statute, others were not. The court also found that Robert had made a prima facie showing of facts sufficient to sustain a favorable result on his DVRO petition if the facts he alleges are substantiated. Therefore, Robert's claim under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act had at least the requisite minimal merit to avoid being stricken as a SLAPP. View "Bassi v. Bassi" on Justia Law

The case involves George and Sheila Byers, who filed a lawsuit against their homeowners' insurance provider, USAA General Indemnity Company (USAA), and other defendants. The Byerses alleged that USAA breached their contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in relation to the installation of hardwood flooring at their home. They sought attorneys' fees as damages under the Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) principle, which allows for the recovery of attorney fees when an insurer's tortious conduct compels the insured to hire an attorney to obtain policy benefits.USAA sought to compel the Byerses to produce documents related to their attorney fees, arguing that by seeking Brandt fees, the Byerses had waived their attorney-client privilege regarding these documents. The Byerses objected, arguing that the requests were ambiguous, overbroad, and violated attorney-client privilege. The trial court granted USAA's motion to compel, allowing the Byerses to redact any references they believed reflected attorney work product.The Byerses then petitioned the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, challenging the trial court's order. They argued that the trial court had forced them to waive their attorney-client privilege and had abused its discretion by ordering the production of all invoices, fee agreements, and payment history.The appellate court denied the Byerses' petition. It found that by seeking Brandt fees, the Byerses had impliedly waived their attorney-client privilege regarding the attorney fees documents. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's order allowing the Byerses to redact references they believed reflected attorney work product. The court concluded that USAA had a right to learn about the attorney fees aspect of the Byerses' alleged damages during discovery. View "Byers v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Andrew Reynosa and his former employer, Advanced Transportation Services, Inc. (ATS). Reynosa had signed an arbitration agreement with ATS during his employment. After leaving the company, he filed a complaint for damages against ATS, which was then moved to arbitration as per the agreement. However, Reynosa later filed a motion to withdraw from arbitration, arguing that ATS had twice failed to pay the required arbitration fees within the stipulated 30-day period, thereby waiving its right to compel him to proceed with arbitration.The Tulare County Superior Court denied Reynosa's motion to withdraw from arbitration. The court found that the parties had mutually agreed to extend the deadline for payment of the arbitration fees, and ATS had paid the fees within the extended deadline. Therefore, the court concluded that ATS had not materially breached the arbitration agreement.Reynosa then petitioned the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, seeking a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order and grant his motion to withdraw from arbitration. The appellate court granted Reynosa's request for a stay of the arbitration proceedings and issued an order to show cause why writ relief should not be granted.The appellate court concluded that the superior court had erroneously denied Reynosa's motion to withdraw from arbitration. The court found that ATS had materially breached the arbitration agreement by failing to pay the arbitration fees within the stipulated 30-day period. The court held that Reynosa was entitled to withdraw from arbitration and proceed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. The court issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order and grant Reynosa's motion to withdraw from arbitration. The court also ordered the superior court to address Reynosa's requests for sanctions under the relevant code of civil procedure. View "Reynosa v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a lawsuit filed by Masimo Corporation against John Bauche, BoundlessRise, LLC (Boundless), and Skyward Investments, LLC (Skyward), represented by The Vanderpool Law Firm (Vanderpool). The lawsuit was based on Bauche's misappropriation of corporate funds while he was a Masimo employee. Bauche had fraudulently engaged Boundless, a company he solely owned, as an "outside vendor" for Masimo, and later transferred the money paid for fraudulent vendor services to Skyward, another company he solely owned. Masimo's attempts to obtain substantive discovery responses from the defendants were met with boilerplate objections, leading to a motion to compel responses and a request for discovery sanctions.The case was stayed twice, first due to Bauche's appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion, and then to allow a federal criminal case against him to be resolved. The referee supervising discovery recommended that the motion to compel be granted and Masimo be awarded $10,000 in discovery sanctions. The trial court agreed and entered an order to that effect, awarding sanctions against Vanderpool and the three defendants.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three, Vanderpool appealed the order, arguing that it had substituted out of the case as counsel before the motion to compel was filed and was therefore unsanctionable. The court rejected this argument, stating that it is not necessary to be counsel of record to be liable for monetary sanctions for discovery misuse. The court affirmed the order, concluding that Vanderpool and its clients were liable for discovery misuse. The court also criticized Vanderpool for its lack of civility in the proceedings. View "Masimo Corporation v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around an oil spill caused by Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (Plains). The spill resulted in the unlawful discharge of over 142,000 gallons of crude oil into the ocean and onto a beach. The trial court considered restitution for four groups of claimants who alleged losses due to the spill. The People of the State of California appealed the denial of restitution for claimants in two of these groups.The trial court had previously ruled that oil industry claimants were not direct victims of Plains' crimes and accepted mediated settlements in lieu of restitution. It also denied restitution to fishers based on a pending class action lawsuit, declined to consider aggregate proof presented by fishers, and refused to consider Plains' criminal conduct.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six held that restitution could not be denied based on mediated civil settlements or a class action lawsuit. However, it upheld the trial court's decision to deny restitution to fishers and oil industry workers, stating that they were not direct victims of the pipeline shutdown after the spill. The court remanded the case for consideration of restitution for four fisher claims, but in all other respects, it affirmed the trial court's decision and denied the writ petition. View "People v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P." on Justia Law

The case involves Symons Emergency Specialties (Symons), a provider of ambulance services, and the City of Riverside. The City regulates ambulance services within its limits under the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC), which requires operators to obtain a valid franchise or permit. Symons filed a civil complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the City, arguing that the RMC section requiring a permit is invalid under the Emergency Medical Services System and Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Act (EMS Act). The dispute centered on whether the City had regulated nonemergency ambulance services as of June 1, 1980, which would allow it to continue doing so under the EMS Act's grandfathering provisions.The trial court found in favor of the City, concluding that Symons had failed to meet its burden of proof. Symons appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimonies, that the court's factual finding was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the RMC section violated federal anti-trust law.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found no error in the admission of testimonies, concluded that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings, and rejected Symons's anti-trust argument. The court held that the City's regulation of ambulance services did not violate the EMS Act or federal anti-trust law. View "Symons Emergency Specialties v. City of Riverside" on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. R. Michael Williams, a board-certified oncologist, who had privileges at Doctor’s Medical Center of Modesto (DMCM) since 2003. Williams alleged that around 2018, his professional relationship with DMCM and other respondents deteriorated. He claimed that respondents treated him with hostility and unprofessionalism, and began investigating him. Williams filed two lawsuits against respondents based on their treatment of him. The first lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by Williams after respondents filed anti-SLAPP motions. The second lawsuit, which is the subject of this appeal, was dismissed by the trial court after granting respondents' anti-SLAPP motions. Williams appealed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the award of attorney fees to respondents.The Superior Court of Stanislaus County had granted two separate anti-SLAPP motions filed by the respondents and awarded them attorney fees. Williams appealed these decisions, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that his claims arose from protected activity and that he failed to establish a probability of prevailing on his claims. He also contended that the award of attorney fees must be reversed because he had established that the court erred in granting the anti-SLAPP motions.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District reversed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the award of attorney fees. The court found that the trial court had erroneously relied on issue preclusion to find that respondents had met their burden under the first SLAPP question. The court concluded that the respondents did not meet their burden of showing that any cause of action or claim in the FAC arose from SLAPP protected activity. Therefore, the SLAPP order must be reversed, and it was unnecessary for the court to address whether Williams met his burden under the second step. View "Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto" on Justia Law

This case revolves around an employment dispute where Renee Vines sued his former employer, O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), alleging causes of action for race- and age-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. A jury found in his favor on his causes of action for retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation, but against him on his other causes of action. Vines moved for statutory attorneys’ fees, which the trial court granted but awarded only a portion of the requested amount. Vines appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in its determination of the fees.The trial court had initially awarded Vines a reduced amount of attorneys’ fees, based on its determination that Vines's unsuccessful discrimination and harassment causes of action were not closely related to or factually intertwined with his successful retaliation causes of action. Vines appealed this decision, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in its determination. On remand, the trial court awarded Vines a significantly larger amount in fees.O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, appealed from the order denying its motion to vacate the renewal of judgment, challenging only the amount of interest on the award of attorneys’ fees. O’Reilly argued that, because the appellate court's decision in the prior appeal was a reversal, not a modification, of the trial court’s initial order, interest on the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded should run from the date of the second order, not the first. The appellate court agreed with O’Reilly, reversed the order denying O’Reilly’s motion to vacate the renewed judgment, and directed the trial court to grant the motion. View "Vines v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Anthony Sam and Renee Kwan, who formed a limited liability company (LLC) and purchased a parking lot. Sam alleged that Kwan, without his knowledge, sold the lot for a significant profit, fabricated documents, and pocketed the money without giving him anything. Sam sued Kwan, her entities, the company providing title and escrow services for the sale, and the parking lot buyer. The trial court ruled against Sam, denying him any remedy.The trial court's decisions were largely unfavorable for Sam. It denied First American's motion for summary judgment but granted the Board's motion for summary judgment. The court also granted judgment on the pleadings to various defendants, including Fidelity, First American, Kwan, Vibrant, Asset, 600 LLC, and Holdings. The court sustained Fidelity's demurrer in part with leave to amend and in part without leave to amend. Sam appealed these decisions.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight affirmed some of the trial court's rulings but reversed others. The appellate court reversed the denial of Sam's leave to amend his claims on behalf of 2013 LLC and remanded to permit Sam to bring these claims on behalf of the member entities. The court also reversed the remainder of the grants of judgment on the pleadings, except as to the breach of contract claims based on the operating agreements of 600 LLC and Holdings against 600 LLC and Holdings. The court affirmed the ruling that the breach of contract claims based on the operating agreements of 600 LLC and Holdings against 600 LLC and Holdings cannot be amended to state viable claims. The court reversed the sustaining of Fidelity's demurrer as to the civil conspiracy cause of action. Finally, the court reversed the grant of the Board's summary judgment motion. View "Sam v. Kwan" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between neighbors in a six-unit condominium building. Robert Dubac, the plaintiff, and Sandra Itkoff and Jonathan Diamond, the defendants, were owners of units in the same building. The defendants made several statements about Dubac, accusing him of various wrongdoings, including discrimination, self-dealing, acting in bad faith, racism, and harassment of their daughter. These statements were made through emails and oral communications to other residents of the building, the homeowners association, and an insurance carrier.The case was initially heard in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dubac sued Itkoff and Diamond for defamation, infliction of emotional distress, interference with economic advantage, and civil harassment. In response, the defendants filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, arguing that their statements were made in connection with a public issue. The trial court denied most of the motion, ruling that the majority of the statements did not meet the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis, which required a showing that the statements were connected to a public issue.The case was then brought before the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight. The defendants appealed the trial court's refusal to strike the majority of Dubac's suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the dispute did not involve a public issue or an issue of public interest. The court reasoned that the dispute was essentially a private feud between neighbors and did not contribute to public discussion of public issues. The court also noted that the audience for the defendants' statements was small and confined to the building's residents and associated parties, further indicating that the matter was not of public interest. View "Dubac v. Itkoff" on Justia Law