Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Ghuman befriended the Shokers, becoming familiar with their rental properties and promising higher returns on an investment in a technology company.. Relying on his representations, the Shokers provided Ghuman with $1.5 million and then sold 10 of their rental properties to a purported cash buyer identified by Ghuman—Phangureh. Ghuman handled the negotiations and transactions. The Shokers paid Ghuman the proceeds for investment in the technology company. Years later, after learning of the fraudulent scheme, the Shokers sued and sought “an order declaring that [Ghuman and Phangureh] hold the [Shokers’ rental properties] in trust for [the Shokers],” and an order compelling Ghuman and Phangureh to convey the properties back to the Shokers. They recorded a notice of lis pendens for each of the rental properties.The trial court expunged the lis pendens, finding that the Shokers did not assert a “real property claim” under Code of Civil Procedure section 405.4. The court of appeal reversed. Section 405.4 defines a “real property claim" as a cause action that could "affect . . . title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property.” In their constructive trust claim, the Shokers claim a present right to title in the same real properties they claim were wrongfully obtained by Phangureh. View "Shoker v. Superior Court of Alameda County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Floyd Chodosh appealed the dismissal of his case against defendants the Commission on Judicial Performance (the Commission), the Department of Justice, and former Attorney General Xavier Becerra (together with the Department of Justice, the Attorney General; and with the Commission, defendants) after the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to Chodosh’s second amended complaint. Chodosh was a resident or owner of property in a senior-owned mobile home park. Prior to bringing this action, Chodosh was one of several plaintiffs involved in litigation concerning the mobile home park in Orange County Superior Court. The Honorable Robert Moss, Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, was assigned to the case. Chodosh submitted a complaint to the Commission in April 2016, alleging Judge Moss committed judicial misconduct in the mobile home park case by reassuming jurisdiction over the case after being disqualified. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the complaint. Chodosh alleged he heard nothing further from the Commission about it, leading him to conclude no action was taken with respect to Judge Moss. Chodosh then pressed his complaint to the Attorney General. The Attorney General likewise acknowledge the complaint, but replied it could not investigate further. Chodosh thereafter filed this lawsuit, alleging Judge Moss committed judicial misconduct by “fixing” the mobile home park case against Chodosh and the other plaintiffs thereto. Having carefully considered the record and the parties’ arguments, The Court of Appeal concluded Chodosh failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against any defendant. View "Chodosh v. Commission on Judicial Performance, et al." on Justia Law

This case was the second appeal arising out of a dispute over the operation of a commercial self-storage facility (Treelake Storage) within a planned unit development in Granite Bay (Treelake Village). Silversword Properties, LLC (Silversword) owned the property upon which K.H. Moss Company and Moss Equity (collectively, Moss) operated Treelake Storage. In a separate but related lawsuit filed in 2017, Parkford Owners for a Better Community (Parkford) challenged Placer County’s (County) issuance of a building permit for the construction of an expansion of Treelake Storage, arguing that the County failed to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Planning and Zoning Law. The trial court concluded: (1) the County’s issuance of the building permit was ministerial rather than discretionary, and therefore CEQA did not apply; and (2) Parkford’s challenge under the Planning and Zoning Law was barred by the statute of limitations. Parkford appealed. In August 2020, a different panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, concluding that completion of the challenged expansion of Treelake Storage prior to entry of judgment rendered moot Parkford’s challenge to the County’s issuance of a building permit authorizing construction of the expansion. In June 2021, the trial court concluded that the lawsuit here, filed by Parkford in 2018 and challenged the County’s issuance of a business license for the operation of Treelake Storage, was barred by both aspects of the doctrine of res judicata--claim and issue preclusion. The Court of Appeal concluded “Parkford I” was not a final judgment “on the merits,” therefore res judicata did not operate to bar this suit. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Parkford Owners for a Better Community v. Windeshausen" on Justia Law

The Thompsons own property in Sonoma County that is subject to a conservation easement (Civ. Code 815) in favor of SLT, which prohibits any impairment of the land’s conservation values. SLT sued, alleging that the Thompsons had done work on the parcel that caused damage in violation of the conservation easement. The Thompsons tendered defense of the action to Burlington Insurance, which declined the tender on the ground that the action did not arise from an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident.” The Ninth Circuit upheld the denial of coverage.While that appeal was pending, the Thompsons tendered defense of the action to Crestbrook and Nationwide, under policies identical in relevant part to the Burlington policy. The insurers declined the tender. The trial court ultimately upheld the denial of coverage. The California court of appeal affirmed. The federal court judgment precludes relitigation of whether the SLT action arose from an “accident” within the meaning of the two insurers’ policies. The issue here is identical to the issue in the Burlington litigation. No material change in the law since the Burlington judgment diminishes its preclusive effect and there is no unfairness in affording the Burlington judgment preclusive effect. View "Thompson v. Crestbrook Insurance Co." on Justia Law

This was the second time plaintiff-appellant Petrolink, Inc. returned to the Court of Appeal in its suit against Lantel Enterprises. Petrolink filed an action against defendant Lantel Enterprises (Lantel), seeking specific performance of a lease agreement that gave Petrolink the option to purchase a commercial property owned by Lantel at fair market value; Lantel cross-complained against Petrolink, contending that Petrolink was refusing to purchase the property for its fair market value. The parties disagreed as to the valuation of the property and were effectively seeking a judicial determination as to the fair market value of the property so that they could complete the transaction. After years of litigation in the trial court, an appeal, a partial reversal of the judgment, remand, and further litigation, the trial court ultimately concluded that the fair market value of the property was $889,854. The court then calculated a net purchase price of $948,404 by subtracting from the fair market value a credit to Petrolink for the rents that it had paid from the date the purchase should have been completed, and adding a credit to Lantel for the loss of use of the sale proceeds. In its amended judgment, the court ordered the parties to complete the transaction; Petrolink was to deposit $948,404 in escrow and Lantel was to deliver title to the property “by grant deed free and clear of all encumbrances.” Petrolink appealed the amended judgment, arguing that it was entitled to certain additional financial reductions and offsets to the purchase price. The Court of Appeal rejected Petrolink’s contentions and affirmed the amended judgment in Petrolink II. Eleven days after Petrolink II was issued, and four days after Petrolink deposited the purchase funds in escrow, the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) filed an eminent domain action pertaining to the property. The filing of the Caltrans action prevented Lantel from being able to convey unencumbered title, as required by the amended judgment. Petrolink then refused to close escrow. Lantel moved to compel performance under the trial court's order, despite the encumbrance on title resulting from the Caltrans eminent domain action. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Petrolink to accept title encumbered by the Caltrans eminent domain action. "[T]he trial court weighed the equities and concluded that it would be more equitable for Petrolink to bear any burden of the encumbrance created by the filing of the Caltrans action." View "Petrolink, Inc. v. Lantel Enterprises" on Justia Law

Golden Gate, which operates a Berkeley horse racing track, sued Action, an animal rights organization, and individuals who allegedly climbed over a fence surrounding the race track, lit incendiary devices that produced smoke, then lay down on the track with their arms connected using PVC to make removing them difficult. The trespassers prevented scheduled races. The complaint alleged trespass and intentional interference with prospective economic relations. The complaint alleged that “each of the defendants" was "the agent, co-conspirator, aider and abettor, employee, representative, co-venturer, and/or alter ego of each and every other defendant,” but did not specify the circumstances upon which Action’s alleged vicarious liability was based. Action responded by filing an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, Code of Civil Procedure 425.16) motion, claiming it “had no involvement in the civil disobedience.”The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, ruling that Action failed to show that the complaint challenged protected activity. The court of appeal affirmed. Claims alleging that an advocacy organization is vicariously liable for a third party’s illegal conduct may be subject to a demurrer or other summary challenge, but they cannot be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute unless the organization’s alleged liability is premised on constitutionally protected activity. The only fair reading of the complaint is that the wrong on which the claims against Action are based was the organization’s alleged involvement in the illegal trespass, not its speech or petitioning activity. View "Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. Direct Action Everywhere" on Justia Law

The Second Appellate District resolved three appeals, referred to as the 270 Action and the other as 475 Action.   In the 270 Action, the trial court sustained special motions to strike Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant and her counsel, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1)1 (i.e., anti-SLAPP motions). The trial court further awarded Defendant and her attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). The first 270 Appeal (No. B308337) is of the trial court’s judgment following its order on the anti-SLAPP motions. The Second Appellate District agreed with the trial court that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits in the 270 Action because, under the circumstances presented, he lacked standing to bring a malicious prosecution claim with respect to an action that had not been prosecuted against him. The court, therefore, affirmed the trial court’s judgment.   The 475 Appeal (No. B307242) is of an order entered by the probate court dismissing Defendant’s creditor’s petition for a finder’s fee in the 475 Action. This order was rendered primarily on a misapplication of the doctrine of issue preclusion. The Second Appellate District reversed this order and remanded to the probate court for further proceedings. By their cross-appeal, Plaintiff and his attorney appeal an order directing the attorney to pay expenses for repeated violations of the probate court’s page limit rules. The Second Appellate District found that the probate court acted within its authority in directing such payment and therefore affirm View "Tukes v. Richard CA2/" on Justia Law

At issue is whether certain records maintained by appellant Kern High School District (“KHSD”) and pertaining to Plaintiff, a police officer formerly employed by KHSD, are subject to disclosure in response to requests made in 2019, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, Section 6250 et seq.) (“CPRA”).   Plaintiff petitioned the Kern County Superior Court for a writ of mandate, temporary restraining order, and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin KHSD from disclosing the subject records in response to the CPRA requests. Plaintiff argued, among other things, that the subject records did not relate to “sustained” findings as defined in subdivision (b) of Penal Code section 832.8 because Plaintiff was never notified of the findings or afforded an “opportunity for an administrative appeal pursuant to Sections 3304 and 3304.5 of the Government Code.” KHSD appealed from the order granting the writ of mandate and injunction and denying KHSD’s motion for reconsideration, and from the judgment entered pursuant to said order.   The Fifth Appellate District affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, trial court’s order and subsequent judgment granting Plaintiff’s injunctive relief. The court held that KHSD has a right to appellate review of the judgment and has standing to appeal. Further, the subject records do not relate to sustained findings under the 2018 amendments to penal code sections 832.7 and 832, thus KHSD has forfeited the argument that there was some other process available to Plaintiff to challenge the internal investigation findings. Thus, the court held that the peremptory writ should be recalled, and both the writ and the judgment should be modified to limit the injunction. View "Wyatt v. Kern High School" on Justia Law

In December 2019, Coastline JX Holdings LLC (Coastline), assignee of a judgment creditor’s interest in a money judgment entered against Stephen Bennett, served on Seamount Financial Group, Inc. (Seamount) a notice of levy on Bennett’s assets in an individual retirement account and a profit-sharing plan. After the trial court ordered Seamount to liquidate Bennett’s interest in both assets and turn them over to the levying officer to be delivered to Coastline, Bennett moved for reconsideration of the trial court’s order under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. In his motion, Bennett first argued to the trial court that the profit-sharing plan was protected from levy because it qualified as a plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). He also filed a motion to tax costs. The trial court denied Bennett’s motion, but informed the parties that, under its inherent authority, it would reconsider its prior order regarding the distribution of the profit-sharing plan only (not the individual retirement account) because the court previously had not considered the implications of it being an ERISA-compliant plan. After a hearing on the court’s own motion, the court reversed its prior decision and concluded the profit-sharing plan was exempt from levy due to preemption by ERISA. The court ordered Coastline to reimburse the profit-sharing plan any funds it had received under the court’s prior order. The trial court also denied Bennett’s motion to tax costs and the request for attorney fees that was included in his supplemental briefing. Coastline and Bennett each appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order and rejected each of the parties’ arguments on appeal. View "Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Bennett" on Justia Law

The real parties in interest, two truck drivers, were injured in a single-vehicle truck accident. At the time of the accident, the injured drivers were operating a truck manufactured by Defendant. Defendant is a Delaware company that maintained a hub in Fontana, California but did not manufacture or assemble trucks in the state.The injured truck drivers filed product liability, negligence and loss of consortium claims against Defendant. Defendant moved to quash, claiming that California courts lack personal jurisdiction over Defendant because the truck drivers' causes of action did not arise out of or relate to its forum-related activities. The truck drivers responded that Defendant was subject to specific jurisdiction because it had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in California by marketing, selling, and servicing the specific model of truck that was involved in the accident. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to quash and Defendant sought a writ of mandate from the Second Appellate District.The Second Appellate District denied Defendant's petition for writ of mandate, finding 1.) Defendant purposefully availed itself of the benefits of operating in California, 2.) the truck drivers' claims "relate to Defendant's forum contacts, and 3.) the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant comports with fair play and substantial justice. View "Daimler Trucks North America LLC v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law