Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A.C. (Mother) challenged a juvenile court’s dispositional finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 did not apply to the dependency proceedings to her five children. Mother contended that San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) failed to discharge its duty of initial inquiry under Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2 (b). After review of the juvenile court record, the Court of Appeal concluded that Mother’s argument lacked merit and therefore affirmed. View "In re Ja.O." on Justia Law

C.E. (mother) appealed an order terminating her parental rights to I.E. (the child) and freeing the child for adoption. Mother’s sole claim on appeal was that the juvenile court erred by ruling the parental benefit exception to termination of parental rights did not apply. The Court of Appeal found the record, especially the child’s consistent and compelling statements that she wished to be adopted, "amply supported" the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination of mother’s parental rights would not be detrimental to the child. Because the Court found no abuse of discretion, judgment was affirmed. View "In re I.E." on Justia Law

Newborn A.H. was placed in a foster home. The Agency reported that it had denied a request for placement by J.B., a “nonrelative extended family member” (NREFM, Welf. & Inst. Code 362.7). J.B. filed a “Relative Information,” requesting that A.H. live with her. The Agency objected on the ground that J.B. was not a relative for purposes of the proceedings. The juvenile court agreed, stating that it independently considered placement with several relatives or with J.B. and denied placement with those individuals “for the reasons stated in the Social Worker’s Report.” J.B. filed a section 388 “Request to Change Court Order.” The juvenile court summarily denied J.B.’s petition, finding that the request did not state new evidence or a change of circumstances, and did not promote A.H.’s best interest. J.B. filed a notice of appeal. The Agency reported that in the dependency case of A.H.’s half-sibling, J.B. “created a division” between the Agency and the parents, falsely accusing the caregiver of neglect. The juvenile court terminated parental rights, selecting adoption as the permanent plan.The court of appeal dismissed J.B.’s appeal from the denial of her petition, the refusal to consider her relative information form, and the placement order. Although J.B. may have an “interest” in A.H. that is sufficient for filing a section 388 petition, she does not have a legally cognizable interest in A.H.’s placement such that she has standing to challenge the juvenile court’s placement decision. View "In re A.H." on Justia Law

Samsara rented San Francisco office space from Rreef for a ten-year term, to be in “delivery condition” by November 1, 2019. Samsara provided an $11,384,368.00 letter of credit as “collateral for the full performance.” In 2021, Samsara sued, asserting that in July 2019, after Rreef had certified “delivery condition,” Samsara discovered that the premises were contaminated with lead and asbestos and that after Samsara conducted testing, Rreef cut off its access to the premises. The next day, Rreef served Samsara a 5-day notice to pay rent or quit based on Samsara’s alleged failure to pay rent for August-September 2021 ($1,826,697.95). Rreef subsequently filed an unlawful detainer complaint, alleging that Samsara stopped paying rent and had created a pretext to avoid its lease obligations. In October 2021, Rreef sought a writ of attachment in the unlawful detainer action, seeking $3,796,175.51: the amount demanded in the 5-day notice and $1,784,477.53 for October-November.The court granted Rreef’s application. The court of appeal reversed and remanded. The court rejected Samsara’s arguments that the amount that Rreef sought to attach must be reduced under Code of Civil Procedure 483.015(b)(4) by the amount remaining on the letter of credit and that the trial court erroneously refused to consider Samsara’s affirmative defenses of waiver and estoppel. However, the trial court declined to consider Samsara’s retaliatory eviction defense and whether Rreef sought attachment for an improper purpose. View "Rreef America Reit II Corp, YYYY v. Samsara, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants City of Huntington Beach (Huntington) and the City Council of Huntington Beach (City Council; collectively, the City) appealed the grant of attorney fees in favor of plaintiff and respondent The Kennedy Commission (Kennedy) for litigation pertaining to the City’s housing element plan under California’s Housing Element Law. Prior to 2015, the City had adopted its 2013-2021 housing element (Housing Element), which identified sufficient sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of lower-income housing mandated by California. This Housing Element was consistent with the general plan of the City. A majority of the units for low-income housing were set aside in an area known as the Beach Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved the Housing Element. In 2015, after complaints from residents about the density in the BECSP, the City passed an amendment that significantly reduced the number of housing units that could be developed in the BECSP (Amended BECSP), thereby effectively eliminating sites for low-income housing in Huntington. Kennedy advised the City that the Amended BECSP did not meet Huntington’s requirement for their RHNA and it violated state law. Kennedy then petitioned for alternative writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that the Amended BECSP was inconsistent with the Housing Element in violation of Government Code sections 65454, 65580, 65583, 65587 and 65860. Kennedy argued that the Amended BESCSP was void as it was not consistent with the Housing Element. The Petition included five other causes of action, including, in the second cause of action, that the City must implement the Housing Element. The trial court applied Government Code section 65454 and declared the Amended BECSP was void because it conflicted with the general plan. The trial court refused to order that the City had to implement the Housing Element as it was written. Kennedy voluntarily dismissed all the other causes of action without prejudice. The trial court also awarded Kennedy attorney fees as the prevailing party. Finding no reversible error in the attorney fee award, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "The Kennedy Com. v. City of Huntington Beach" on Justia Law

Having accidentally locked himself out of his apartment and unable to obtain assistance from the managers of the building, Plaintiff went to the roof of the building and attempted to drop down onto the balcony of his top-floor apartment to enter his unit. He was unsuccessful, instead falling to the ground and suffering injuries. Plaintiff filed this action for negligence and premises liability against 726 Hudson Avenue, LLC, Kohen Investments LLC, the entities and individuals who owned and managed the apartment building (the 726 Hudson defendants). The 726 Hudson defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Plaintiff could not establish that they owed him a duty of care or that their alleged breaches of that duty caused his injuries. The trial court agreed with them on both issues and granted the motion.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court held that California law imposes a duty on everyone, including landlords, to exercise reasonable care, and the 726 Hudson defendants have not shown public policy considerations justify departing from that general duty; and causation, as it is in most cases, is a factual issue. The court wrote that Plaintiff created a triable issue by stating in his declaration that, had the 726 Hudson defendants not breached their duty of care to him—by, for example, not having an on-site property manager or an alarm on the roof-access door—he would not have gone onto the roof on the night of his injury. View "Razoumovitch v. 726 Hudson Ave." on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a former employee of appellant Cambrian Homecare. When she was hired, Plaintiff signed a written arbitration agreement. Plaintiff brought wage-and-hour claims against Cambrian. Cambrian petitioned for arbitration. The trial court denied the petition. The trial court found that even if the parties had formed an arbitration agreement, the agreement had unconscionable terms, terms that so permeated the agreement they could not be severed.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court held that the agreement, read together—as it must be—with other contracts signed as part of Plaintiff’s hiring, contained unconscionable terms. The trial court had discretion to not sever the unconscionable terms and to refuse to enforce the agreement.   The court explained that it has no difficulty concluding that the Arbitration Agreement and the Confidentiality Agreement should be read together. They were executed on the same day. They were both separate aspects of a single primary transaction—Plaintiff’s hiring. They both governed, ultimately, the same issue—how to resolve disputes arising between Plaintiff and Cambrian arising from Alberto’s employment. Failing to read them together artificially segments the parties’ contractual relationship. Treating them separately fails to account for the overall dispute resolution process the parties agreed upon. So, unconscionability in the Confidentiality Agreement can and does affect whether the Arbitration Agreement is also unconscionable. View "Alberto v. Cambrian Homecare" on Justia Law

Defendants hired Plaintiff as a nanny. Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment. They hoped Plaintiff would release potential claims against them in exchange for a severance payment. Defendants asked a friend (who ran a nanny placement service and had helped hire Plaintiff) to propose this to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not sign the proposed severance agreement. Instead, she brought wage-and-hour claims against Defendants. Following discovery, Plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim for defamation. She based her defamation claim on statements Defendants made to the intermediary during the negotiations over severance. Defendants responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. They argued that the allegedly defamatory statements were made in anticipation of litigation. They moved to strike not only the new defamation allegations but also the entire complaint. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion and required the Defendants to pay some of Plaintiff’s attorney fees.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that Defendants did not show that Plaintiff’s defamation claim was based on activity protected by the anti-SLAPP law. The court explained that Defendants appealed to the entire SAC. They did so even after the trial court correctly found the motion frivolous as to most of Plaintiff’s SAC. Defendants informed the trial court that “the appeal is going to be of every cause of action.” Defendants were thereby able to obtain a full stay of the action in the trial court, even though the appeal was frivolous as to most of the action. If Defendants had appealed as to only the defamation cause of action, Plaintiff might have had the opportunity to argue for permission to continue discovery. View "Nirschl v. Schiller" on Justia Law

In 2020, challenger Joe E. Collins III and incumbent Maxine Waters competed for a seat in Congress. During the campaign, Waters accused Collins of a dishonorable discharge from the Navy. Collins shot back that he had not been dishonorably discharged. He showed Waters a document saying so. Collins sued Waters for defamation during the campaign, but Waters convinced the trial court to grant her special motion to strike his suit.   The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s order. The court explained that the document apparently was official. There was nothing suspicious about its appearance. The document, if genuine, would have established without doubt that Defendant’s charge was false. Waters easily could have checked its authenticity but did not. Her appellate briefing asserts that today, years later, she still does not know the truth about whether Collins’s discharge was dishonorable. The court wrote that this disinterest in a conclusive and easily-available fact could suggest willful blindness. The court explained that the preliminary posture of the case required the court to accept Plaintiff's evidence as true. His evidence created a possible inference of Defendant’s willful blindness, which is probative of actual malice. Thus, the court concluded that it was error to grant Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. View "Collins v. Waters" on Justia Law

Kinney, an adjudicated vexatious litigant and disbarred former attorney, obtained leave to pursue an appeal from the final judgment in this probate proceeding. Leave was granted not because Kinney made the necessary threshold showing of merit and absence of intent to harass or delay under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, but because the vexatious litigant statute has no application to a party who files an appeal in a proceeding he did not initiate.Kinney appealed the Final Distribution and Allowance of Fees Order, apparently claiming that the probate court erred in approving the Special Administrator’s decision not to pay him his $1,000 statutory fee, cancellation of an agreement with a prior administrator of the estate to manage and perform various services relating to a house owned by the estate, and approval of a distribution of $329,684.82 out of the sales proceeds of that house to satisfy indebtedness pursuant to certain judgment liens against that property.The court of appeal affirmed, describing Kinney’s arguments as “incoherent” and a “hodgepodge.” On all but one of the issues presented, Kinney either has no standing to appeal or is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion; on the remaining claim of error, the probate court acted within its discretion. View "Estate of Kempton" on Justia Law