Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In November 2019, Landlords served Tenants with a 120-Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy and half of the relocation assistance due under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. Both Tenants then claimed disability status; Landlord provided one-half of the additional relocation assistance payment for disabled tenants. Landlords filed a Notice of Intent to Withdraw Residential Units from the Rental Market with the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board and served Tenants with Notice to Tenant of Filing of Notice of Intent to Withdraw Residential Units from the Rental Market. Tenants exercised their right under the Act to a one-year extension of the withdrawal date based on their claimed disabilities; they did not vacate the premises by November 15, 2020. Landlords filed an unlawful detainer suit, Ellis Act, Gov. Code 7060. Tenants argued that the termination notice was defective in quoting a superseded version of the ordinance as the ground for eviction and therefore not properly advising them concerning relocation assistance payments.The court of appeal affirmed judgment in favor of Tenants, rejecting arguments that the Act preempts the ordinance, that Tenants cannot assert a defense under the Act for purported failure to comply with the ordinance, that the trial court improperly found that the notice of termination had to strictly comply with the ordinance, and that Landlords should be allowed to amend their complaint to state a claim for ejectment. View "2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs sued West, their landlord, and her son Timothy, who was part owner of property. Judgments were entered against West, totalling $201,245.50 (including $75,000 for punitive damages); judgments against Timotht totaled $67,550. The trebling of certain damages was to be determined separately, as was the determination of prevailing party attorney fees and costs. The trial court later granted Timothy a new trial, and denied West’s new trial motion on the condition that plaintiffs consent to a remittitur of total punitive damages to $15,000, in light of West’s “negative net income and limited net worth.” Plaintiffs consented to the remittitur and defendants posted a supersedeas bond of $221,064.75. The court granted the plaintiffs an additional award of $684,282.50 in attorney fees, plus costs and the trebling of certain damages, as against West. The plaintiffs requested entry of an amended judgment to reflect that order and delete any reference to Timothy; they later moved to require the posting of a bond for the additional amount, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1.The court granted a waiver under section 995.240 based on a showing of indigency and issued an amended judgment against West: $1,137,744.21. The court of appeal affirmed, dismissing West’s appeal of the amended judgment. The trial court had authority under section 995.240 to waive the bond requirement. View "Sarkany v. West" on Justia Law

Siri sued her former employer, Trinchero, for wrongful termination. Trinchero served an offer to compromise by paying Siri $500,000 in exchange for dismissal, Code of Civil Procedure section 998. During the 30-day period in which Trinchero’s offer remained in effect, the parties communicated about whether Siri’s acceptance would trigger a right to prejudgment interest of approximately $379,000. After Trinchero declined to modify the offer, Siri served “objections” to the offer, contending it was defective because it did not address the availability of interest. Days later, Siri served a “Notice of Conditional Acceptance,” then filed the objections to Trinchero’s offer and requested that the court enter a judgment, “consistent with [her] conditional acceptance” and including prejudgment interest. Trinchero filed a “Notice of Plaintiff’s Acceptance of 998 Offer,” stating that “Although [Trinchero] does not waive any right" to "separately respond to the substantive issues” and characterizing the conditions as “simply requests that the court clarify post-resolution questions.”Trinchero moved to enforce the purported settlement agreement. The court found that Siri’s service of her conditional acceptance created a binding settlement and did not condition acceptance on particular findings by the court. Siri then filed an unsuccessful motion seeking interest. The court of appeal reversed. Siri’s “conditional acceptance” included additional terms and did not create a binding settlement enforceable under section 998. View "Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc." on Justia Law

601 Main sued Frym, its tenant, to collect $145,211.29 in unpaid rent, taxes, and insurance premiums. Frym filed a cross-complaint against 601, DeCarli (601’s principal), and their attorney, Leoni, for fraud, extortion, and breach of contract, alleging that 601, DeCarli, and Leoni entered Frym’s office “without announcement or an appointment and placed a blank promissory note in front of [him] and berated him and yelled at him to sign a blank promissory note or he would be evicted.” 601, DeCarli, and Leoni each filed a separate anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion, Code Civ. Proc. 425.16. The court granted DeCarli’s motion and awarded $6,310 in attorney fees and costs. Frym dismissed the cross-complaints against Leoni and 601. The court stated that “there is no reason that all three of these motions could not have been brought as one" and, although Leoni and 601 prevailed, or would have prevailed absent the dismissals, no further fees were merited.The court of appeal reversed. The trial court erred in not employing the lodestar method when it denied 601 and Leoni’s requests for attorney fees and costs; they were prevailing parties to their anti-SLAPP motions. Since the court found that the three motions contained similar or identical arguments, it could have reduced the lodestar figure based on duplicative work. View "Frym v. 601 Main Street LLC" on Justia Law

T.T. (Mother) challenged a juvenile court’s finding that the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) did not apply to the dependency proceedings concerning her son, Dominick D. She argued the juvenile court failed to ensure that San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) discharged its duty of initial inquiry into Dominick’s possible Indian ancestry under California Welfare & Institutions Code section 224.2(b). To this, the Court of Appeal agreed, but declined to address the parties’ arguments concerning harmlessness, because ICWA inquiry and notice errors did not warrant reversal of the juvenile court’s jurisdictional or dispositional findings and orders other than the finding that ICWA did not apply. The Court accordingly vacated that finding and remanded for compliance with ICWA and related California law, but otherwise affirmed. View "In re Dominick D." on Justia Law

King is Jimmy's former spouse and mother of his minor child. Jimmy was killed in a California helicopter crash. His sole heirs were his spouse, Wasdin, and his minor child. Jimmy and King were residents of Alabama. An Alabama probate court named King as the personal representative of Jimmy’s estate. King filed a California wrongful death suit. Wasdin moved to intervene; Code Civil Procedure 387(d)(1)(B)) provides that a court “shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene” if “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction" and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair that person’s ability to protect that interest unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties. King asserted the one-action rule, which precludes an heir from filing an independent action after a decedent’s personal representative has filed suit for wrongful death, and that any complaints about the inadequacy of her representation of Wasdin’s interest should be addressed by the Alabama probate court.The court of appeal reversed the denial of Wasdin’s motion. An heir must be granted leave to intervene as a matter of right so long as the statutory requirements for intervention have been met. The trial court denied the motion on the incorrect basis that there was no legal authority allowing an heir to intervene in a wrongful death action filed by the personal representative and failed to consider whether the heir’s interests were adequately represented by the personal representative. View "King v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff on her causes of action for wrongful eviction and financial elder abuse. Defendant contends that (1) it was unfairly surprised at trial because the pleadings were inadequate to put LOP on notice of Plaintiff's claims; (2) Plainitiff failed to prove financial elder abuse; (3) the trial court erred in the admission and exclusion of evidence; (4) Plaintiff is not entitled to damages, or alternatively, her damages should be limited; and (5) the award of attorney fees and costs should be reversed. address the adequacy of the pleadings.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s judgment, order denying the motion for a new trial, and order awarding Plaintiff attorney fees. The court explained the record demonstrates that Defendant was not misled. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial on this basis. Having argued that refusal to re-rent was the only theory of recovery for wrongful eviction pleaded in the complaint in its summation brief, Defendant cannot contend that it was unfairly surprised or that the cause of action was inadequately pleaded. Further, the court held that the right to re-rent under LAMC Section 151.27 and the Ellis Act is a property right within the meaning of the Elder Abuse Act. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the finding that LOP had fraudulent intent and knew its refusal to re-rent was wrong or harmful to Plaintiff. View "Cameron v. Las Orchidias Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

Paredes obtained dental services from Mai Dental in 2015-2016, with the understanding that payments made by Delta Dental would satisfy in full any debt that Paredes owed. In 2018, Paredes received a check from Delta for $2,195. Mai's employee refused to accept the check as full payment. Paredes retained the uncashed check but did not make any payment to Mai. Mai assigned Paredes’s debt to Credit Consulting, which filed suit, seeking $9,613 in allegedly unpaid dental bills, plus interest and attorney fees. More than one year later, Paredes filed a cross-complaint asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692) (FDCPA) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Consulting responded with an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion to strike the cross-complaint, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the trial court erred in finding Paredes had demonstrated a probability of success on the merits because her claims are time-barred; that the trial court erred in determining this matter arose out of a “consumer credit transaction,” as defined by the Rosenthal Act, and that Paredes failed to demonstrate that its collection action violated the FDCPA because Credit Consulting filed suit in reasonable reliance upon the information provided by Mai. View "Paredes v. Credit Consulting Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The juvenile court bypassed family reunification services for appellant S.Z. (Mother) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5 (b)(5) and (c)(3). Mother contended the court’s ruling was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeal concluded Mother’s argument lacked merit, but published its opinion in this case to clarify the relationship between subdivisions (b)(5) and (c)(3) of section 361.5 and the resulting burden on an appellant challenging the bypass of reunification services under those provisions. Because Mother did not make a showing under subsection (c)(3), and could not do so on this record, the Court affirmed. View "In re Raul V." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Lynn Gerlach and Lola Seals appealed the judgment entered in their action against defendant K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC under the Right to Repair Act (the Act), concerning alleged construction defects. After review, the Court of Appeal affirmed and published its opinion to clarify: (1) a roof is a manufactured product within the meaning of California Civil Code section 896(g)(3)(A) only if the roof is completely manufactured offsite; and (2) to prove a roof defect claim under subdivision (a)(4) or (g)(11) of section 896, a plaintiff must prove that water intrusion has actually occurred or roofing material has actually fallen from the roof. View "Gerlach v. K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC" on Justia Law