Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiff 65282 Two Bunch Palms Building LLC, (Two Bunch) orally leased an industrial building in Desert Hot Springs to Coastal Harvest II, LLC, (Coastal Harvest) for the indoor cultivation of cannabis. When, after two years of negotiations, the parties were unable to agree to a written lease and a master service agreement, Two Bunch served Coastal Harvest with a 30-day notice to quit. Coastal Harvest refused to vacate the property, so Two Bunch instituted this unlawful detainer action. After a one-day trial, the trial court entered a judgment of possession for Two Bunch and awarded it $180,000.13 in holdover damages. At trial court, Coastal Harvest unsuccessfully argued it operated a licensed cannabis operation on the property and, therefore, it could not be evicted because it was entitled to the presumption under California Civil Code section 1943 of a one-year tenancy for “agricultural . . . purposes” and the presumption of a one-year holdover tenancy for use of “agricultural lands” under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2). Assuming without deciding that Coastal Harvest’s cannabis operation constituted agriculture, Two Bunch rebutted the presumption under Civil Code section 1943 with evidence that the parties agreed that, unless they signed a written lease, the term of the oral lease was month-to-month. And, because this unlawful detainer action was not filed for failure to pay rent, Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2) and its holdover presumption for “agricultural” tenants did not apply. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "65282 Two Bunch Palms Building LLC v. Coastal Harvest II, LLC" on Justia Law

Young alleged that Midland improperly pursued a debt collection lawsuit and obtained a default judgment against her for a delinquent credit account of $8,529.93. She sought vacatur of the default judgment and damages under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She claimed that Midland falsely and deceptively represented in the debt collection lawsuit that they effected substituted service of process on her, and then relied on this false representation to obtain the default judgment and attempt to collect on it. The complaint also cited the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692). Midland responded with a motion to strike all of Young’s causes of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP statute), The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, finding thatYoung did not show she would probably prevail on the merits of her claims.The court of appeal reversed. Young showed she would probably prevail on the merits of her Rosenthal Act cause of action; she produced prima facie evidence that Midland falsely represented substituted service on her was effected in the debt collection lawsuit. She was not required under the Rosenthal Act section 1788.17 to show that Midland knowingly made this false representation. View "Young v. Midland Funding LLC" on Justia Law

The City of Lemoore (City) appealed following a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff, who was injured when he tripped over an uneven portion of a City sidewalk. The City asks us to declare the offending portion of the sidewalk not a “dangerous condition” under the Government Claims Act as a matter of law. The City argued the present sidewalk condition must be deemed trivial as a matter of law because of its open and obvious nature, Plaintiff’s admitted familiarity with the condition, and the absence of prior accidents there.   The Fifth Appellate District affirmed. On balance, the factors do not combine to create a risk so trivial, minor, or insignificant that the sidewalk condition must be held not dangerous as a matter of law. Although the condition was visible on approach on an inferably clear, dry day and had not harmed others or Plaintiff in his many prior jogs, reasonable minds could still differ as to its dangerousness based on the evidence of the first defect’s relatively large height and rough edge, the presence of back-to-back defects, and the partial obstruction of the pine needles and debris. The determination of the condition’s dangerousness was properly left to the jury, whose verdict we will not overturn. View "Stack v. City of Lemoore" on Justia Law

Glassman prevailed in an uninsured motorist (UIM) arbitration against Safeco. The arbitration agreement was contained in a Safeco umbrella policy that provided excess UIM benefits, above those afforded by Glassman’s concurrent Safeco auto-liability policy. Glassman had sustained bystander emotional distress damages after witnessing her mother’s fatal injuries when an underinsured driver hit them both while they were in a crosswalk. The arbitrator’s award determined that Glassman’s compensable damages exceeded the required threshold to entitle her to the umbrella-policy excess UIM limits of $1 million.Before the arbitration, Glassman had issued to Safeco a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer of $999,999.99. Safeco did not accept the offer. Glassman sought prejudgment interest under section 3287(a) from the date of her section 998 offer. Under section 3287(a), a liquidated damage claim triggers entitlement to prejudgment interest as a form of additional compensatory damages if the defendant knew or was able to calculate from reasonably available information the amount of the plaintiff’s liquidated claim owed as of a particular day. The trial court denied Glassman’s request, concluding that the amount of her claim was not certain or capable of being made certain.The court of appeal affirmed. An insured’s prevailing section 998 offer in a UIM proceeding does not effectively liquidate the insured’s claim in the amount and as of the date of the offer under section 3287(a). The court noted the lack of evidence of Safeco’s knowledge that Glassman’s economic losses or special damages resulting from the accident already exceeded the umbrella-policy limits when her section 998 offer was made. View "Glassman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America" on Justia Law