Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2021, a plaintiff filed a complaint against a public school district, alleging that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a teacher while attending middle and high school. The complaint asserted that the teacher’s abusive conduct was widely known within the school and that the district either knew or should have known about the abuse but failed to act, allowing the teacher to remain employed. The plaintiff brought claims for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, relying on statutory provisions that exempt certain childhood sexual assault claims from the usual requirement to present a claim to the public entity before filing suit.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case after the school district moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district argued that the plaintiff’s claims were only possible due to Assembly Bill 218 (AB 218), which retroactively eliminated the claims presentation requirement for childhood sexual assault claims against public entities. The district contended that AB 218 violated the gift clause of the California Constitution by imposing liability for past acts where no enforceable claim previously existed. The trial court agreed, finding that AB 218 retroactively created liability and constituted an unconstitutional gift of public funds, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that AB 218 does not violate the gift clause because it did not create new substantive liability; rather, it removed a procedural barrier to enforcing pre-existing liability for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with directions to deny the school district’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "O.B. v. L.A. Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

A sitting judge of the San Diego County Superior Court applied to be appointed as the San Diego County Public Defender in 2023. The County informed him that he was ineligible for the position, citing Government Code section 27701, which requires that a person must have been a practicing attorney in all courts of the State for at least the year preceding the date of election or appointment. The judge, acting in his individual capacity, filed a declaratory relief action seeking a judicial determination that the statute only required one year of prior practice at any time before appointment, not necessarily the year immediately preceding.The case was initially filed in the San Diego County Superior Court but was reassigned to the Orange County Superior Court due to the nature of the parties. The parties agreed to resolve the statutory interpretation issue through a motion. The plaintiff argued that his interpretation avoided absurd results and constitutional issues, while the County maintained that the statute’s plain language required the one year of practice to be immediately before appointment. The Orange County Superior Court ruled in favor of the County, finding the statutory language unambiguous and declining to rewrite the statute.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The appellate court held that the language of section 27701 is unambiguous: eligibility for the office of public defender requires that the candidate has been a practicing attorney in all courts of the State for at least the one year immediately preceding election or appointment. The court rejected arguments regarding ambiguity, absurdity, and constitutional avoidance, finding no basis to depart from the statute’s plain meaning. The judgment of the Orange County Superior Court was affirmed. View "Washington v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

A mobilehome park owner challenged the constitutionality of a California statute that limits annual rent increases for certain mobilehome parks located within the jurisdictions of two or more incorporated cities. The owner argued that the statute is facially unconstitutional because it lacks a procedural mechanism allowing property owners to seek rent increases above the statutory cap to ensure a fair return, which the owner claimed is required by the California and U.S. Constitutions. The owner asserted that the absence of such a mechanism results in a violation of due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against uncompensated takings.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the owner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the statute’s failure to provide a process for seeking exceptions to the rent cap violated due process and rendered the statute unconstitutional. The court rejected the owner’s takings argument but concluded that the legal issue was dispositive and denied the State’s request for leave to amend its answer. Judgment was entered in favor of the owner, and the State appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the owner failed to establish that the statute is facially unconstitutional, as the relevant legal precedents do not require a fair return adjustment mechanism in every rent control law. The court also found that the State’s general denial in its answer placed the owner’s standing at issue, precluding judgment on the pleadings. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the absence of a fair return adjustment mechanism does not, by itself, render the statute facially unconstitutional, and that the State’s answer raised material issues that should have prevented judgment on the pleadings. View "Anaheim Mobile Estates v. State" on Justia Law

Two minor plaintiffs attended a four-day overnight science camp operated by a private entity and organized by their public school district. After returning home, they and their parents alleged that, during the camp, they were exposed to discussions and lessons about gender identity, including being introduced to counselors who used “they/them” pronouns and being asked to state their own preferred pronouns. The plaintiffs also claimed they were not allowed to contact their parents to discuss these matters due to a camp policy prohibiting calls home. They asserted that these experiences caused them severe emotional distress and initiated professional therapy.The plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of Orange County, asserting claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) against both the camp operator and the school district. The camp operator responded with a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), arguing that the claims arose from protected speech on matters of public interest—specifically, gender identity discussions. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the claims were not based on protected activity but rather on the lack of disclosure to parents and the prohibition on contacting them. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees, finding the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held that the trial court erred in denying the anti-SLAPP motion in its entirety. The appellate court found that the IIED and NIED claims, to the extent they were based on exposure to gender identity discussions, arose from protected activity and lacked minimal merit, both factually and legally, under California public policy. However, claims based solely on the prohibition of calls home or sleeping arrangements did not arise from protected activity and could proceed. The order was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. View "Sandoval v. Pali Institute" on Justia Law

Gary Birdsall was stopped in traffic on the Bay Bridge when his van was rear-ended by Barton Helfet, resulting in serious injuries to Gary and a loss of consortium claim by his wife, Pamela. The Birdsalls’ attorney sent Helfet’s insurer a settlement demand for the $100,000 policy limit, specifying acceptance required delivery of a standard bodily injury release to be executed by both Gary and Pamela, a settlement check, and proof of policy limits by a set deadline. The insurer responded before the deadline with a letter accepting the offer, a release (which mistakenly listed Pamela as a releasee rather than a releasor), the check, and proof of policy limits. A corrected release was sent after the deadline. The Birdsalls’ attorney rejected the settlement, citing the release’s error and the late correction, and returned the check.The Birdsalls filed suit in the San Francisco County Superior Court. Helfet’s answer included affirmative defenses of settlement and comparative fault for Gary’s failure to wear a seat belt. The Birdsalls moved for summary adjudication on the settlement defense, which the law and motion judge granted. At trial, the assigned judge excluded evidence and jury instructions regarding Gary’s seat belt use. The jury found Helfet negligent, awarded substantial damages to both plaintiffs, and judgment was entered. Helfet’s post-trial motions were denied, and he appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It held that summary adjudication of the settlement defense was improper because there was a triable issue of material fact regarding mutual consent to the settlement. The court also found error in excluding seat belt evidence and instructions, holding that such evidence is admissible and, under the circumstances, expert testimony was not required. The judgment and amended judgment were reversed, with instructions for a new trial and denial of summary adjudication. View "Birdsall v. Helfet" on Justia Law

Adriana Ramirez and her family were involved in litigation with third parties, including Harvey Miller and Stockdale Villa Mobile Home Park, where Ramirez was a property manager. After settling employment and unlawful detainer claims, Ramirez alleged that opposing counsel, attorney Sandra McCormack and her law firm, interfered with the settlement by, among other things, disputing the mailing address for settlement checks and failing to ensure the dismissal and sealing of the unlawful detainer action as required by the settlement. Ramirez claimed these actions caused her significant damages and brought several tort and contract-related claims against McCormack and other attorneys involved.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied McCormack’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court relied on precedents involving non-attorney defendants and found that the alleged conduct did not constitute protected petitioning activity under the statute. The court did not address the applicability of Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, which specifically addressed claims against attorneys for litigation-related conduct.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that McCormack’s actions as opposing counsel—such as negotiating settlements, communicating with other attorneys, and advising clients—were protected petitioning activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court found that Ramirez’s claims arose from McCormack’s representation of her clients in litigation, fitting squarely within the statute’s protections as articulated in Thayer. Furthermore, Ramirez failed to present evidence of minimal merit for her claims on appeal, effectively forfeiting the issue. The appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to grant the anti-SLAPP motion and determine the fees and costs Ramirez must pay. View "Ramirez v. McCormack" on Justia Law

Paul Kim, a California resident, purchased an Airstream motorhome from a dealer in California. The warranty agreement for the motorhome included an Ohio choice of law provision and an Ohio forum selection clause. Kim sued Airstream in California, alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumers Warranty Act. Airstream moved to stay the lawsuit in favor of the Ohio forum, citing the forum selection clause. Kim opposed, arguing that enforcing the forum selection clause would diminish his unwaivable rights under the Song-Beverly Act.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County severed the choice of law provision as illegal under the Song-Beverly Act’s waiver prohibition but granted Airstream’s motion to stay, concluding that enforcing the forum selection clause would not diminish Kim’s unwaivable California rights. The court relied on Airstream’s stipulation to apply the Song-Beverly Act in the Ohio forum.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to sever the choice of law provision but reversed the decision to stay the case. The appellate court held that Airstream’s stipulation was insufficient to meet its burden of proving that enforcing the forum selection clause would not diminish Kim’s unwaivable rights. The court instructed the trial court to allow Airstream the opportunity to demonstrate that Ohio conflict of law principles would require the application of the Song-Beverly Act to Kim’s claims, thereby protecting his unwaivable rights. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Kim v. Airstream" on Justia Law

Michael J. Kiely, an Irish resident, and MDMK Ltd., an Irish corporation, filed a lawsuit against HYPH (USA), Inc., HYPH Corporation, XHAIL, Inc., and several individual defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to fraudulently induce Kiely to sell shares of a company he founded at a significant discount, subsequently transferring most of those shares to a new company, thereby depriving Kiely of any ownership interest in the new company.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion to stay or dismiss the action, determining that the case should be heard in Sweden based on a mandatory forum selection clause and traditional forum non conveniens grounds. The court found that Sweden was a suitable alternative forum and that both private and public interest factors weighed in favor of Sweden as the forum. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, contesting both grounds of the ruling.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that private and public interest factors favored Sweden as the forum. The appellate court held that the trial court properly stayed the action on the alternative independent ground of traditional forum non conveniens. Additionally, the appellate court addressed the impact of the California Supreme Court's decision in EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court on the plaintiffs' claim that the enforcement of the forum selection clause operated as an "implied waiver" of their jury trial right. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding that the enforcement of the forum selection clause did not violate California public policy regarding the right to a jury trial. View "Kiely v. Hyph (USA), Inc." on Justia Law

In January 2021, Gregory Steshenko was declared a vexatious litigant in a prior civil action and was subject to a prefiling order requiring him to obtain permission from the presiding judge before filing any new litigation. Despite this, in November 2021, while his appeal in the prior action was pending, Steshenko filed a new civil action against the Foothill-De Anza Community College District and others. The College District filed a notice regarding the prefiling order, and Steshenko objected, claiming the order was stayed pending his appeal. The College District and others moved to have Steshenko declared a vexatious litigant again and to require him to furnish security.The trial court determined that the prefiling order was not stayed on appeal and that Steshenko was required to request leave before filing the new action, which he failed to do. Consequently, the court dismissed the action. Alternatively, the court found Steshenko to be a vexatious litigant again, issued a new prefiling order, required him to furnish security, and dismissed the action when he refused to provide the security.On appeal, Steshenko argued that the judgment of dismissal should be reversed. The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that the January 2021 prefiling order remained in effect while on appeal and that the trial court properly dismissed the action based on Steshenko’s failure to obtain permission before filing the action and the denial of permission after the action was filed. The appellate court struck the June 2024 orders that again found Steshenko to be a vexatious litigant and required him to obtain leave before filing new litigation. However, Steshenko continues to be designated as a vexatious litigant and subject to the January 2021 prefiling order. View "Steshenko v. Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of the annual fee charged for separate property tax assessments. The owners argued that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the assessment, constituting a tax requiring voter approval, which had not been obtained.The Superior Court of Riverside County rejected the owners' argument and entered judgment for the County. The court ruled that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of the assessment and was not a tax requiring voter approval. The court also considered additional costs not included in the original fee calculation, such as costs related to assessment appeals and a new computer system.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed. The County had used the assessor's entire budget for a previous fiscal year to calculate the fee, which included costs unrelated to the separate timeshare assessments. The court also noted that the County had not provided evidence of the actual cost of the separate assessments and had improperly included costs for services provided to all property owners.The Court of Appeal concluded that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the fee was not a tax. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to address the owners' requests for declaratory, injunctive, and writ relief. The court emphasized that the fee must be limited to the reasonable cost of the separate assessments and must bear a fair relationship to the benefits received by the timeshare estate owners. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law