Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A nonprofit religious organization operates several Zen Buddhist temples in California, providing residential training programs where participants, known as Work Practice Apprentices (WPAs), live and work at the temples. Participants perform various tasks, including cleaning, cooking, and guest services, as part of their Zen training. Upon completing the WPA program, individuals may become staff members, continuing similar duties while residing at the temple. The plaintiff participated as a WPA and later as a staff member, performing duties such as guest services, food preparation, and facility maintenance. She received modest monthly stipends and room and board, but ultimately challenged the compensation as inadequate under California wage-and-hour laws.After her affiliation with the organization ended, the plaintiff filed a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner, seeking unpaid regular and overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and liquidated damages. The Labor Commissioner ruled in her favor against the organization and two individual leaders, holding the individuals personally liable as employers under Labor Code section 558.1, and awarded her $149,177.15. The defendants appealed to the Superior Court of San Francisco, posting an undertaking only on behalf of the organization, not the individual defendants. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeals by the individuals for lack of undertakings and granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding the ministerial exception under the First Amendment barred the wage-and-hour claims.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reversed. It held that the ministerial exception does not bar wage-and-hour claims by ministers unless such claims would require judicial inquiry into ecclesiastical matters or religious doctrine. Because there was no evidence that adjudicating the plaintiff’s wage claims would entangle the court in religious concerns, the exception did not apply. The court also held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the individual defendants’ appeals due to their failure to post the required undertakings. View "Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, identified as Jane Roe and John Doe, brought a defamation lawsuit against Jenna Smith and her mother, alleging that Jenna had falsely accused John of sexual assault and Jane of being a non-consensual partner while all were students at a Los Angeles County high school. These accusations, made both to other students and school officials, led to an investigation by the school, which ultimately found John not responsible for the alleged misconduct. The plaintiffs claimed significant reputational and emotional harm from the spread of these accusations and sought damages, injunctive relief, and an order preventing future defamatory statements.After the complaint was filed under pseudonyms, the First Amendment Coalition moved to unseal the plaintiffs’ names. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, however, deemed the motion premature and directed the plaintiffs to file a formal motion to maintain anonymity. Both plaintiffs and defendants filed such motions without supporting evidence. The court granted both motions, allowing all parties to proceed pseudonymously. The Coalition then appealed the order granting anonymity to the plaintiffs, while no party appealed the order regarding defendants.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the matter and applied independent judgment on the constitutional issue. It held that, absent statutory authorization, litigating under pseudonyms should only occur in rare circumstances and requires an evidentiary showing of an overriding interest that outweighs the public’s right of access to court records. The court found that the plaintiffs’ generalized fears of reputational harm and potential future impact on employment were insufficient and unsupported by evidence. It reversed the Superior Court’s order granting plaintiffs anonymity, emphasizing that defamation plaintiffs are generally not entitled to proceed pseudonymously without robust factual support. View "Roe v. Smith" on Justia Law

OneTaste, Inc., a company founded in 2004 that promoted “orgasmic meditation,” sued Netflix for defamation in 2023. The lawsuit was based on a Netflix documentary that featured allegations from former employee Ayries Blanck, who claimed she was sexually assaulted and abused in connection with her employment and participation in OneTaste’s activities. The documentary included statements from Blanck’s sister and other former associates, as well as references to earlier media investigations and reports about alleged exploitative and abusive practices at OneTaste. OneTaste asserted that Netflix published false statements with actual malice, despite being provided with information it claimed disproved the allegations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed Netflix’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16). Netflix argued its conduct was protected activity and that OneTaste could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing, especially on the element of actual malice. After considering the pleadings and both parties’ evidence, the trial court concluded that OneTaste failed to present sufficient evidence that Netflix published the challenged statements with actual malice. The court also found OneTaste’s additional evidence did not establish that Netflix was aware of probable falsity or recklessly disregarded the truth. As a result, the court granted Netflix’s motion to strike the complaint.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that OneTaste did not meet its burden to show a probability of prevailing on the defamation claim because it failed to produce evidence of actual malice by Netflix. The court also rejected OneTaste’s constitutional and public policy challenges to the anti-SLAPP statute and denied its requests for judicial notice of materials not considered by the trial court. View "Onetaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who, along with his wife, adopted two young girls through the foster care system. Years later, when one of the girls was nearly 17, she disclosed to a friend’s mother that she had been sexually abused by her adoptive father over several years. This disclosure led to a law enforcement investigation, during which the defendant voluntarily went to the sheriff’s department to “turn himself in.” He was subsequently interrogated by two officers in a closed interview room at the station. During the third segment of questioning, after persistent and increasingly accusatory interrogation techniques, the defendant confessed to engaging in sexual acts with one of the victims.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County heard pretrial motions regarding the admissibility of the defendant’s statements to law enforcement. The prosecution sought to admit the statements, while the defense moved to suppress them, arguing they were obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. The trial court ruled the interrogation was not custodial and admitted the statements. At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from the victims and law enforcement, while the defense highlighted inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to over 120 years to life in prison.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed whether the defendant’s confession should have been suppressed under Miranda v. Arizona. The appellate court held that while the initial questioning was noncustodial, the interrogation became custodial during the third segment, at which point Miranda warnings were required but not given. The court found the admission of the confession was prejudicial and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "People v. NavaAdame" on Justia Law

Travis Rockhill was charged with the murder of Gary Matthews, who was shot outside a friend’s home and later died from his injuries. The prosecution presented evidence that Rockhill had a dispute with Matthews over a scooter sale and was angry with him prior to the shooting. The defense argued that another individual, Louie (“Primo”), was involved and that Rockhill was not the shooter. During Rockhill’s first trial, he made incriminating statements to the courtroom bailiff, but the prosecution did not introduce this evidence. The jury deadlocked, resulting in a mistrial.In the second trial, presided over by Judge Emily Cole, Rockhill testified in his own defense. After both sides rested, Judge Cole sent ex parte text messages to a former colleague at the District Attorney’s office, questioning why the prosecutor was not calling the bailiff as a rebuttal witness and suggesting someone should speak to the prosecutor about it. The prosecution did not act on this suggestion, and Rockhill was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm enhancement. After the verdict, the prosecution disclosed Judge Cole’s ex parte communications to the defense. Judge Cole recused herself, acknowledging the impropriety but maintaining she had been impartial. Rockhill moved for a new trial based on judicial bias, but Judge Denise McLaughlin-Bennett of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the motion, finding no intent to intervene in the proceedings and no impact on the verdict.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court held that Judge Cole’s ex parte communications constituted a due process violation and structural error, as they demonstrated an unconstitutional probability of actual judicial bias. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, directing the lower court to grant Rockhill’s motion for a new trial. View "P. v. Rockhill" on Justia Law

Raymundo Gomez was accused of committing lewd acts against three children at a public swimming pool. The key incidents involved Gomez allegedly bringing a 14-year-old boy’s hand into contact with his genitals and, separately, touching an eight-year-old girl, Katrina, on her buttocks and hip. The prosecution’s case against Gomez relied heavily on Katrina’s prior statements, including her preliminary hearing testimony and a forensic interview, as she did not testify at trial. Katrina’s mother objected to bringing her to court, citing concerns about the emotional impact on her daughter and her reluctance to have Katrina relive the experience in a courtroom setting.The Superior Court of San Diego County found Katrina unavailable to testify after hearing from her mother, who expressed that she did not want Katrina to participate further in the proceedings. The court allowed Katrina’s prior statements to be admitted at trial. The jury convicted Gomez of the offenses against Kane and Katrina but acquitted him of the offense against a third child. Gomez appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding Katrina unavailable and admitting her prior statements, thus violating his constitutional rights.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish Katrina’s unavailability as a witness because the record did not show that her mother’s refusal to bring her to court was unequivocal or that all reasonable efforts to secure her testimony had been exhausted. The court found this error prejudicial and concluded that the admission of Katrina’s prior statements violated Gomez’s confrontation rights. As a result, the court reversed the convictions on all three lewd act counts and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "P. v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Huntington Beach, a charter city in Orange County, amended its city charter through Measure A, which authorized the city to require voter identification for municipal elections beginning in 2026. This measure was passed by local voters. In response, the California Legislature enacted Elections Code section 10005, effective January 1, 2025, which prohibits any local government from requiring voter identification for voting unless mandated by state or federal law. The statute was specifically intended to address Huntington Beach’s Measure A.Following the passage of Measure A, the State of California, through the Attorney General and Secretary of State, filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Orange County, seeking to invalidate the voter identification provision in the city charter. The City of Huntington Beach demurred, arguing the issue was not ripe since the provision had not yet been implemented. The trial court sustained the demurrer, but after procedural developments and further hearings, ultimately denied the state’s petition, finding that the charter provision did not violate the right to vote or implicate the integrity of the electoral process. The state timely appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. Applying the four-part “home rule” test, the court held that Elections Code section 10005 addresses a matter of statewide concern—integrity of the electoral process—and is narrowly tailored to prevent discriminatory barriers to voting. The court concluded that section 10005 preempts the Huntington Beach charter provision. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and remanded with directions to issue a writ of mandate invalidating the charter provision, enter a permanent injunction against its enforcement, and declare it preempted by state law. View "P. ex rel. Bonta v. City of Huntington Beach" on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles implemented the recycLA program in 2017, establishing exclusive franchise agreements with private waste haulers to provide waste collection services for commercial and multi-unit residential properties. Under these agreements, haulers paid the City a percentage of their gross receipts as a franchise fee. Several property owners and tenants who paid for waste hauling services under this system filed a consolidated class action against the City, alleging that the franchise fees were actually an unlawful tax imposed without voter approval, in violation of Proposition 218 and related constitutional provisions. The plaintiffs sought refunds of the alleged illegal taxes and declaratory relief regarding the validity of the fees.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County considered the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. While the court found the proposed class sufficiently numerous and ascertainable, and agreed that the question of whether the franchise fees constituted an illegal tax was subject to common proof, it identified a fundamental problem: not all proposed class members suffered an economic loss, as some landlords and property owners may have passed the cost of the fees on to tenants. The court concluded that entitlement to refunds was not susceptible to common proof and that individual issues predominated over common ones. It also found that a class action was not the superior method for resolving the dispute, due to the risk of unjust enrichment and the complexity of determining who actually bore the cost of the fees. The court denied class certification.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s order under the substantial evidence standard. The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that individual issues predominated and that class treatment was not superior. The order denying class certification was affirmed. View "Leeds v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

In this case, a group consisting of an alumni association and several descendants of Serranus Clinton Hastings challenged the enactment of Assembly Bill 1936, which changed the name of “Hastings College of the Law” to “College of the Law, San Francisco” and eliminated a statutory requirement that a seat on the College’s board of directors be reserved for an heir or representative of S.C. Hastings. The plaintiffs argued that the original 1878 Act establishing the College constituted a binding contract between the State and S.C. Hastings and his descendants, and that the new legislation violated constitutional protections, including the Contract Clauses, the prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, and the California Constitution’s provision regarding collegiate freedom.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the 1878 Act was a contract rather than an exercise of legislative power. The court also determined that Assembly Bill 1936 did not constitute a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, and that the changes to the College’s name and governance did not violate the California Constitution, particularly since the College’s board had requested the name change.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the State could not contract away its sovereign authority to manage a public institution, including the power to change the College’s name or governance structure. The court further concluded that Assembly Bill 1936 was not punitive and did not violate constitutional prohibitions on bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The court also found no violation of the California Constitution’s collegiate freedom provision, as the changes were initiated by the College’s board. The judgment in favor of the State and College defendants was affirmed. View "Hastings College Conservation Committee v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was originally sentenced in 2005 to a 10-year prison term for assault with a deadly weapon, with additional time added for inflicting great bodily injury, personal use of a weapon, and three prior prison commitments. Nearly two decades later, the defendant sought recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, which invalidates certain prior prison term enhancements. However, by this time, the defendant was no longer serving the original sentence that included the enhancements; instead, he was incarcerated for offenses committed while in prison, with those sentences running consecutively to the original term.After the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified the defendant as potentially eligible for relief, the Superior Court of Riverside County examined whether he qualified under section 1172.75. The court found, based on the defendant’s record, that he had completed the sentence containing the prior prison term enhancements and was now serving time solely for in-prison offenses. Relying on People v. Escobedo, the court concluded that section 1172.75 only applies to individuals currently serving a sentence that includes the now-invalidated enhancements, and not to those serving subsequent, separate sentences for in-prison offenses. The court also rejected the defendant’s equal protection argument, finding a rational basis for the legislative distinction.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.75 is limited to defendants currently serving a sentence that includes a prior prison term enhancement. Because the defendant was serving a sentence for in-prison offenses, not the original judgment with the enhancements, he was ineligible for relief. The court also found no equal protection violation in the statutory scheme. View "People v. McKean" on Justia Law