Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Pacific Bay treated an individual who was a subscriber to a Blue Shield health plan. It submitted invoices to Blue Shield for payment for the services rendered to the subscriber. Pacific Bay contends it was underpaid and brought suit against Blue Shield to recover the additional amount it claimed to be owed. The court sustained Blue Shield's demurrer to the first amended complaint (FAC) without leave to amend, finding that Pacific Bay had not shown that it was entitled to any payment from Blue Shield. As an out-of-network, nonemergency service provider, Pacific Bay was entitled to payment for treating Blue Shield's subscriber under the terms of the applicable evidence of coverage (EOC). Pacific Bay did not allege Blue Shield paid it improperly under the EOC, nor did it argue that it could allege additional facts to support such a claim. Pacific Bay claimed it was underpaid. Against this backdrop, Pacific Bay's other allegations did not give rise to any valid cause of action. View "Pacific Bay Recovery v. Cal. Physicians' Services" on Justia Law

This case concerned residual pollutant discharges from public fireworks displays over the waters of the United States within the jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (the Regional Board), which included a large portion of San Diego County, portions of south Orange County, and the southwestern portion of Riverside County (San Diego Region). The Regional Board approved a general permit for public displays of fireworks over the region's surface waters. Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF) appealed the trial court's denial of its petition for writ of mandamus challenging the approval of the Fireworks Permit. CERF contended: (1) the trial court applied the wrong standard of review in denying its petition, (2) the Fireworks Permit violates federal law regarding water quality monitoring, and (3) the Fireworks Permit violated prohibitions in the State Water Resources Control Board's 2009 California Ocean Plan concerning discharges in areas of special biological significance (ASBS). After review, the Court of Appeal rejected CERF's arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "Coastal Environ. Rights v. Cal. Reg. Wat. Quality Control Bd." on Justia Law

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Commission) notified Cornelius Oluseyi Ogunsalu that it had found probable cause to recommend the suspension of his preliminary teaching credentials for 21 days and that Ogunsalu's application for a clear credential would be granted only upon completion of the suspension. Ogunsalu requested a continuance of the administrative hearing before the Commission. An administrative law judge (ALJ) of the OAH denied the continuance on the ground Ogunsalu had not shown good cause for it. Ogunsalu was a vexatious litigant, and sought to challenge the denial of the continuance request by filing a petition for writ of mandate with the superior court. Ogunsalu then requested permission from the Court of Appeal to file a petition for a writ directing the superior court to vacate its order denying his request to file the petition for writ of mandate in that court. In the proposed filing, he contended that the superior court had abused its discretion by relying on his status as a vexatious litigant to deny his request to file the petition for writ of mandate, because he was a "defendant" in the administrative hearing before the Commission and sought to "appeal" a ruling against him in that proceeding. The Court of Appeal concluded that the vexatious litigant prefiling requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 applied to a self-represented litigant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, who filed a writ of mandate proceeding in the superior court to challenge the denial of his request to continue an administrative proceeding where the vexatious litigant was the respondent in the administrative proceeding. Accordingly, the superior court correctly subjected the vexatious litigant to the prefiling requirements of section 391.7. Because subsequent events have rendered effective relief impossible, the petition was dismissed as moot. View "Ogunsalu v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Notwithstanding the parties’ stipulated retroactivity provision, the California Court of Appeals concluded the trial court erred in awarding Russell Stover a child care credit for any period before May 10, 2011, when he filed his motion to modify support, because any such credits effectively modified the support award and incurred arrearages retroactively in contravention of the Family Code statutes governing modification of support orders. Furthermore, the Court concluded that while Eileen Bruntz failed to timely challenge an April 2007 order containing the stipulated retroactivity provision, public policy considerations precluded the Court of Appeal from judicially estopping her from challenging the order now. Bruntz and respondent Stover shared two children and years of acrimony-fueled court contests following the demise of their romantic relationship. Bruntz challenged several orders related to Stover’s alleged failure over the ensuing years to fully pay $1,000 in monthly child support under an April 2007 support order, which contained a contested stipulated retroactivity provision. View "Stover v. Bruntz" on Justia Law

Chango filed suit against Applied for breach of contract, conversion, and fraud. On appeal, Applied purported to challenge the trial court's order denying its renewed petition to compel arbitration filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b). The Court of Appeal dismissed, because an order denying a renewed motion or application under section 1008, subdivision (b) was not appealable. View "Chango Coffee v. Applied Underwriters" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the DOGGR's issuance of permits to Aera Energy for 214 new oil wells in the South Belridge Oil Field of Kern County. The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal agreed with plaintiffs that res judicata did not apply to their cause of action because the judgment in a prior action in Alameda County was not on the merits but, instead, was due to a finding of mootness following the enactment of a new law known as Senate Bill No. 4. Because the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer on the ground of res judicata, the court reversed with directions to enter a new order overruling the demurrer. View "Association of Irritated Residents v. CA Department of Conservation" on Justia Law

Property owners Carolyn Kutzke and Karen Kapp applied to the City of San Diego (City) for a vesting tentative parcel map and related permits to allow them to subdivide two adjacent lots totaling 1.45 acres (property) into four lots, retain an existing residence on one lot, and build a new residence on each of the remaining lots (project). The local community planning board recommended denial of the project; however, the planning commission approved it and certified a mitigated negative declaration for it. A citizen appealed the planning commission's decision to the City council. The City council granted the appeal and reversed the planning commission's decision, finding the project's mitigated negative declaration was inadequate, particularly as to the project's potential impacts on geology, land use, and public safety; the project was inconsistent with the applicable community plan; and requested deviations from applicable development regulations were inappropriate for the project's location and would not result in a more desirable project. The owners petitioned the Court of Appeal for mandamus relief from the superior court order reversing the City’s decision. The Court of Appeal reversed the superior court, finding substantial evidence to support the City’s findings. View "Kutzke v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

Representing himself, Grappo filed a complaint that "could not have withstood a demurrer,” which was served on McKean, a man named in the caption but not identified in the complaint, who apparently had no relationship with Grappo. Six months after service, without notice to anyone, Grappo requested a $9,982,308.83 default against McKean, with a claimed itemization of damages referring to numbers not found in the complaint. The clerk entered the default, but the court refused to enter judgment. Weeks later, McKean died. Two weeks later, Grappo filed another request for default and judgment of $12,012,818.88, “not mailed” because McKean was “now deceased.” This time, Grappo referred to “$60,000,” an amount in the prayer for the claimed value of personal property referred to in the eighth cause of action “belonging to some of the heirs of the Michael A. Grappo 2003 Trust.” Apparently based on that, the court entered judgment for Grappo for $60,000. The trustee of McKean’s trust successfully moved to vacate and set aside the default judgment. The court of appeal affirmed, stating that trial courts, “however burdened they be,” must vigilantly attend to their duty in connection with the default process, “to act as gatekeeper, ensuring that only the appropriate claims get through.” View "Grappo v. McMills" on Justia Law

Dirck Van Audenhove sued Robert Perry for malicious prosecution, alleging that Perry contacted the police and falsely accused him of stalking, and that the police arrested him, but the district attorney’s office ultimately declined to prosecute. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the action, on the ground that the complaint failed to allege a prosecution, as required for a claim of malicious prosecution. In a matter of first impression, the California Court of Appeal held that a cause of action for malicious prosecution cannot be premised on an arrest that does not result in formal charges (at least when the arrest is not pursuant to a warrant). View "Van Audenhove v. Perry" on Justia Law

The Act makes the builder who sells homes liable for violations without proof of negligence, while general contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales are liable only if the plaintiff proves they negligently caused the violation in whole or part. The jury found the grading subcontractor, defendant Gerbo Excavating, was not negligent in any respect. The trial court, not the jury, found the builder/seller, Knotty Bear Development, Inc. and Knotty Bear Construction, Inc. (collectively Knotty Bear), liable after Knotty Bear failed to appear for trial. Plaintiffs sought redress from Gerbo under common law negligence theories for the tree damage, because they argued tree damage was not covered by the Act. The Court of Appeal found that plaintiffs failed to show tree damage was not covered by the Act: the jury found Gerbo was not negligent in any respect, even when the jury found building standards were violated. Finding no other basis for reversal, the Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and post-trial orders. View "Gillotti v. Stewart" on Justia Law