Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from plaintiff's personal injury suit against 20 defendants where plaintiff alleged that defendants were jointly and severally liable. After plaintiff denied a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 from all 20 defendants, the trial court granted a nonsuit as to 14 of the 20 defendants and entered judgment. The case against the remaining six defendants went to a jury but a mistrial was granted. The dismissed defendants asserted that defendants collectively had incurred nearly $300,000 in expert witness fees, and sought to recover 14/20ths (70 percent) of that total. Plaintiff moved to strike or tax costs on the ground that a final judgment had not yet been entered against all 20 of the defendants on whose behalf the section 998 offer had been made, and thus the dismissed defendants could not yet recover expert witness fees. The trial court denied the motion to strike or tax costs, and it awarded the dismissed defendants expert witness fees. The court reversed the award of expert witness fees, concluding that the offer must be compared to the judgment(s) obtained against all defendants, not some of the defendants. In this case, because no judgment has yet been entered with regard to six of the 20 defendants, the trial court erred in awarding expert witness fees to the 14 dismissed defendants. View "Kahn v. The Dewey Group" on Justia Law

HP sued Oracle, based on Oracle's announcement that it would no longer make software products compatible with HP hardware products. After the court found that Oracle was obligated to adapt its products to the HP systems. Oracle announced that it would appeal. Oracle brought a motion under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure 425.16, asserting that HP had “changed its damages theory” by relying on “customer uncertainty" resulting from Oracle’s announcement and refusal to accept the ruling. Oracle contended that this theory of damages arose in substantial part from its announced intention to appeal, which announcement was protected under the anti-SLAPP act because it constituted an exercise or attempt to exercise Oracle’s rights to freedom of speech and to petition the government for redress. The court denied the motion as untimely. Oracle appealed. The court of appeal affirmed, finding the appeal and underlying motion ”utterly without merit.” The motion was late under any reasonable construction of the facts and was properly denied because it could not possibly achieve the purposes for which the anti-SLAPP statute was enacted. The court declined to assess sanctions against Oracle “only because we do not wish to further delay the long-overdue trial of the merits.” View "Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp." on Justia Law

In 2009, on Highway 101 in Monterey County, a bus driver lost control of the vehicle, which collided with bridge rails. The bus, carrying 34 French tourists, rolled; 18 occupants were ejected. Several were thrown over the bridge onto railroad tracks. The driver and four passengers were killed; 21 were severely injured. Capitales Tours and other defendants moved to dismiss or stay California lawsuits, asserting that France was the suitable forum. Plaintiffs argued that most of the documents and witnesses were in California, and that medical personnel and hospitals would likely receive nothing if the cases were transferred. There were more than $5 million in outstanding medical bills. The court found that public and private interest factors favored France because plaintiffs sought application of the French Tourism Code and would require translation. The court stayed the actions for one year. If France accepted jurisdiction, the actions would be dismissed. Capitales initiated proceedings in Paris, but the pretrial judge invoked lis pendens, because the Monterey court had not completely declined jurisdiction. While appeal was pending in France, the California court of appeal affirmed the stay. On remittitur, Capitales moved to dismiss, citing plaintiffs’ failure to initiate proceedings in France and resistance to their jurisdiction. The court dismissed. The court of appeal reversed, holding that further proceedings are necessary before dismissal. View "Auffert v. Capitales Tours" on Justia Law

Irwin and Linda divorced in 1987. They are now in their early 80’s. Their marital termination agreement, which merged into a judgment, required Irwin to establish a life insurance trust for Linda, subject to certain terms. In 2013, Linda filed a Request for Order to Disclose Insurance Information, asking for a court order requiring Irwin to provide “proof” that the insurance policy was in existence. Irwin filed a Responsive Declaration consenting to disclose information about his existing life insurance for Linda’s benefit, attached some documents, and did not appear at the hearing. At the hearing, the family court judge construed the Request for Order To Disclose Insurance Information as a motion to enforce the marital termination agreement, and issued an order after the hearing which, among other things, required Irwin to establish a $126,916.00 trust with Linda as beneficiary. The court of appeal reversed, holding that Irwin was denied due process because the trial court’s orders exceeded the relief requested by Linda in the Request for Orders, he had inadequate notice of the relief, and the family court impermissibly modified a judgment that was nonmodifiable on its terms. View "In re: Marriage of Siegel" on Justia Law

Diamond was injured while riding as a passenger in a taxi that was involved in a collision with another car. She settled claims against the taxi driver, the owner of the cab, and the Yellow Cab Collective. The Yellow Cab parties agreed to participate at the Diamonds’ trial. A jury found both drivers were negligent and attributed 60 percent responsibility to the driver of the other car, Reshko. The Diamonds were awarded $406,698.00, plus fees and costs. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the pretrial settlement between the Diamonds and the Yellow Cab parties. Because it was prevented from learning about the settlement, the jury was denied the opportunity to consider the effect of that settlement on the trial strategies the parties employed with respect to material conflicts in the trial evidence. Many of those conflicts bore directly on determining the primary cause of the accident and the extent of damages. It is reasonably probable that the jury’s resolution of conflicting evidence pertaining to at least some of the material disputed issues would have been more favorable to the Reshkos if the jury had been made aware of the settlement. View "Diamond v. Reshko" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, appealed from the revised judgment entered by the trial court following this court’s reversal with instructions to enter a new judgment in Chodos v. Borman. Plaintiff contended that the trial court erred when it failed to include postjudgment interest in the final judgment, with interest to run on the $1,717,921 from September 19, 2013, the date of the original judgment. Defendant argued that interest should only run from the date of entry of the judgment following remittitur, November 14, 2014. The court held that interest ran on the $1,717,921 judgment from the date of the original judgment - September 19, 2013 - and that plaintiff is entitled to the costs claimed and interest on those costs from that date. Accordingly, the court modified and affirmed the judgment. View "Chodos v. Borman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, various hospitals, filed these appeals to recoup financial reimbursement from the Department after their successful petition for writ of mandate to have SB 1103 invalidated. The court concluded that Plaintiffs Dignity Health, Hi-Desert, and Mee’s requests are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the hospitals could have requested monetary damages in their original petition for writ of mandate but they failed to do so. The court concluded that Plaintiff Modoc's request is barred by the doctrine of forfeiture given its failure to object or otherwise oppose the Department’s motion to dismiss in front of the ALJ. Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Mee is reversed and the judgments in favor of the Department are affirmed. View "Hi-Desert Medical Center v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Tenant was served with a three-day notice to quit that listed eight separate incidents that involved damaging the premises, disturbing neighbors and other tenants in the building, and running around naked and/or in boxer shorts. Tenant did not vacate, but filed an answer to an unlawful detainer action, asserting affirmative defenses, including breach of the warranty of habitability, payment of all rent that was due, discrimination based on sexual orientation and religion, laches, and retaliation for requesting repairs. Tenant subsequently entered into a settlement agreement, which included a stipulation for judgment, with the property management company and the property owner. Tenant violated the agreement. The trial court entered a stipulated judgment giving the lessors damages, costs, fees, and possession of the property. Subsequently, tenant sued the lessors for their damaged and missing personal property, which had remained in the rental residence after tenant vacated the premises. The trial court dismissed the complaint. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the doctrine of res judicata bars all of tenant’s claims and that his daughter, who was not a tenant and did not reside in the rental unit, cannot state a claim against the lessors. View "Needelman v. Dewolf Realty Co." on Justia Law

A jury found defendant-appellant Jose Cardenas guilty of one count of robbery, and three counts of burglary. As to counts 1 and 3, the jury found true: that defendant had personally inflicted great bodily injury upon a person 70 years of age or older; and that he had burglarized and robbed a person who was 65 years of age or older. In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that he had served three prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 18 years in state prison with credit of 451 days for time served. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the great bodily injury enhancement attached to counts 1 and 3; (2) the trial court erred in imposing sentences on both counts 1 and 3 in violation of Penal Code section 654; (3) the trial court erred in imposing punishment on the two enhancement allegations attached to count 1; and (4) the trial court erred in calculating his presentence custody credits. Upon review, the Court of Appeal modified defendant’s sentence and presentence custody credits and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "California v. Cardenas" on Justia Law

Rancho Pauma Mutual Water Company filed a petition to enforce a water rights judgment against the Yuima Municipal Water District entered about 60 years earlier. The District appealed the trial court's order, contending the trial court misunderstood subsequent amendments to the judgment and improperly limited the amount of water the District could withdraw. Rancho Pauma argued the appeal should have been dismissed as the order was not appealable. Upon review, the Court of Appeal rejected Rancho Pauma's argument regarding appealability of the order. The Court also rejected the District's arguments and affirmed the order. View "Rancho Pauma Mut. Water Co. v. Yuima Mun. Water Dist." on Justia Law