Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Cross-complainants and appellants Antonio Arriagarazo and Alicia Rodriguez de Arriaga accepted an offer to compromise their wrongful death suit against cross-defendants-respondents BMW of North America and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998,1 agreeing to sign a general release in exchange for monetary payment. Judgment was entered on the compromise, however the trial court subsequently vacated the judgment as void on the ground that BMW’s section 998 offer purportedly did not contemplate entry of judgment. Appellants contended the trial court erred in vacating judgment. The Court of Appeal agreed with appellants and reversed the trial court’s order. View "Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from two cases consolidated for trial, involving a California Raisin Marketing Order (the Marketing Order) first issued in 1998 by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (the Department) under the California Marketing Act of 1937 (the CMA). The first case, Lion Raisins, Inc., et al. v. Ross (case No. C086205) sought a declaration and injunctive relief filed by Lion Raisins, Inc., et al. (collectively, Lion). The Lion complaint sought a declaration that the Marketing Order was unconstitutional and invalid, and requested an injunction against future assessments, and a refund of all assessments paid since the 1999-2000 crop year. In the second case, People ex rel. Ross v. Raisin Valley Farms, LLC, et al. (case No. C086206), Raisin Valley Farms, LLC, et al. (collectively, Raisin Valley) sought to recover unpaid assessments, and a related cross-complaint against the Department for declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief. Similar to the Lion complaint, the Raisin Valley cross-complaint challenged the validity of the Marketing Order on multiple grounds. The trial court initially entered judgment against the Department on the consolidated cases, concluding the Marketing Order was invalid because there was insufficient evidence that the Marketing Order was necessary to address severe economic conditions in the raisin industry. The Department appealed and the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the trial court’s interpretation of the CMA was too narrow. On remand, after additional briefing, the trial court entered judgments in favor of the Department, denying the challenges to the Marketing Order. Lion and Raisin Valley appealed those judgments, asserting numerous errors. With regard to the appeal in the Lion case, the Court of Appeal modified the judgment to dismiss the “varietal benefit” and “non-disparagement” claims due to appellants’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and affirmed the judgment as modified. The Court dismissed the appeal in the Raisin Valley case as premature under the one final judgment rule. View "Lion Raisins v. Ross" on Justia Law

Appellant Sekayi White was an incarcerated and self-represented plaintiff who filed suit after his criminal defense lawyer, respondent Michael Molfetta, failed to respond to repeated requests for his case file. Having exhausted all avenues of direct state appeal of his conviction, White wanted to use the file to help him prepare petitions for collateral habeas relief. Molfetta received White’s letters, but believed he was prohibited from producing the file because it included protected materials. Instead of explaining the problem directly to his former client and producing the unprotected parts of the file, Molfetta effectively ignored the letters. Molfetta produced the file, minus protected materials, only after being ordered to do so by the trial judge in the underlying litigation here. By the time of the production, White’s deadline to file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus had expired; his petition in the state court was also denied. White sued to recoup the money he spent reconstructing the file, later asking for emotional distress damages. He got neither. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Molfetta’s favor, “but we publish in the hope the embarrassment we feel about the case can lead to improvement. … absent a miscarriage of justice (of which we have no evidence here) our moral and professional assessments, however deeply felt, cannot create a cause of action in tort. As explained herein, we must agree with the trial court: White failed to adequately plead and prove injury from Molfetta’s wrongful behavior.” View "White v. Molfetta" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Charles Best Jr. and Robbie Johnson Best alleged that defendants (collectively the Bank), attempted to collect a debt secured by the Bests’ home, despite having no legal right to do so. They alleged that, in the process, the Bank engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent debt collection practices. Based on these allegations, they raised six causes of action, including one under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The trial court sustained the Bank’s demurrer to the entire complaint on the ground of res judicata; it ruled that the Bests were asserting the same cause(s) of action as in a prior federal action that they brought, unsuccessfully, against the Bank. In the nonpublished portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal held that, as to three of the Best’s causes of action (including their Rosenthal Act cause of action) the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer based on res judicata. As to the other three, the Court found the Bests did not articulate any reason why res judicata does not apply; thus, they have forfeited any such contention. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court held that the Rosenthal Act could apply to a nonjudicial foreclosure; the lower federal court opinions on which the Bank relied were superseded by controlling decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the California Courts of Appeal. View "Best v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

ABS REO Trust II (ABS) appealed an order denying its motion to correct/vacate the portion of a prior quiet title judgment adjudicating the rights of a defaulting party, Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc. (Clarion), despite that Clarion had not been served with the operative amended complaint and the court did not hold a hearing on the plaintiff’s claims against Clarion. The Court of Appeal concluded the court erred in denying ABS’s motion. ABS had standing to bring this motion and it met its burden to show the prior judgment was void as to Clarion. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded with directions for the court to grant ABS’s motion and strike the portions of the prior judgment relating to Clarion. View "Paterra v. Hansen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Smart Corner Owners Association (the Association), a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, filed a construction defect action against the developers of a residential condominium tower. In 2019, the trial court granted the developers’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Association failed to obtain the consent of more than 50 percent of its condominium owner members before filing suit as required by the governing declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). In concluding the Association’s complaint was invalid, the court rejected the Association’s argument that a subsequent vote of ratification, held after the filing of the operative complaint, could satisfy the member consent requirement. After the Association filed its notice of appeal, the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 5986 (eff. January 1, 2020), rendering prelitigation member vote requirements null and void. The Legislature also expressly provided the statute would apply retroactively “to claims initiated before the effective date of this section, except if those claims have been resolved through an executed settlement, a final arbitration decision, or a final judicial decision on the merits.” The Association sought reversal of the judgment on the ground that its claims had not yet been resolved through a “final judicial decision on the merits” when section 5986 became effective, and it was therefore entitled to the benefits of the new legislation. To this, the Court of Appeal agreed, and reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the developer. View "Smart Corner Owners Assn. v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff San Diegans for Open Government (SDOG) sued defendant Julio Fonseca, the former superintendent of the San Ysidro School District (District), alleging Fonseca caused the illegal disbursement of District funds in a settlement between District and third-party Enrique Gonzalez, a former District employee. The court bifurcated the trial and, after an evidentiary hearing, found SDOG lacked standing under newly amended Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. To this, the Court of Appeal concluded SDOG did not meet the taxpayer requirements for standing under section 526a and affirmed the trial court. View "San Diegans for Open Government v. Fonseca" on Justia Law

The Nunns refinanced the mortgage on their Nampa home in 2006 with a negative amortization loan. The payments jumped from about $2,900 per month to $4,300 in 2008. The Nunns defaulted and, in January 2009, applied for a loan modification. In 2010, Chase denied the application. In 2011, the Nunns filed suit, alleging wrongful foreclosure. The superior court granted Chase summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed; a remittitur was filed in the superior court on July 18, 2016. Chase sold the house in a foreclosure sale and acquired the property.In April 2017, the Nunns filed a notice of lis pendens. They had until July 18, 2019, to bring their case to trial, Code of Civil Procedure 583.320. In March 2019, Chase advised the court of its intent to complete discovery by “Summer 2019” and to move for summary judgment. In May 2019, a trial date was set for January 13, 2020. In August, the case was dismissed because the three-year deadline for bringing the case to trial had passed. The Nunns filed post-judgment motions, seeking to correct the minutes of the May 2019 hearing to reflect that the January 2020 trial date was set by agreement. Chase admitted requesting a trial date that would allow further discovery.The court of appeal reversed the dismissal for failure to prosecute. The parties’ agreement to a trial date outside the three-year period extended the statutory deadline to that trial date. View "Nunn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the district court's judgment sustaining CIT's demurrer without leave to amend based on res judicata. The court explained that appellant's present lawsuit involves the same primary right as three prior lawsuits that she brought against CIT, and plaintiff lost on the merits in all three prior lawsuits: one in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and two in the United States District Court. The court further explained that the prior adverse decisions by three trial and two appellate courts were not advisory opinions suggesting how appellant should proceed in the future. The court concluded that, pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, the decisions constitute final judgments on the merits precluding further litigation against respondent concerning the same primary right. The court noted that, although the present appeal is frivolous, it will not order sanctions to be imposed on appellant. However, the court cautioned appellant that further attempts to litigate the subject matter of this lawsuit will result in sanctions. View "Colebrook v. CIT Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Michael O’Shea hired attorney Susan Lindenberg to represent him in a child support action. After O’Shea’s ex-wife was awarded what he believed to be an excessive amount of child support, he filed this action, alleging Lindenberg should have retained a forensic accountant. The case went to trial and the jury concluded, in a special verdict, that Lindenberg owed a professional duty of care that she breached. The jury was unable to agree, however, on whether the breach of duty caused him damage, and the judge declared a mistrial. Lindenberg moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that the evidence presented at trial did not support a finding of causation, specifically, that without the alleged malpractice, O’Shea would have received a better result. The trial court agreed and directed a verdict in Lindenberg’s favor. After review, the Court of Appeal found O’Shea failed to present sufficient testimony on the issue of causation, and therefore affirmed the directed verdict. View "O'Shea v. Lindenberg" on Justia Law