Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Contra Costa District Attorney charged Lewis with vehicle theft; evading a peace officer while driving with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others; resisting a peace officer; and possession of burglar’s tools. The trial court dismissed the last two counts on the prosecutor’s motion, but the jury convicted Lewis of the first two counts. He was sentenced to six years in prison. While expressing concerns about whether the prosecution satisfied its discovery obligations, the court of appeal affirmed denial of a Brady motion in which Lewis sought to compel the discovery of information about the arresting officer, Switzer, after the prosecution informed the defense on the first day of trial that Switzer would not be called as a witness. The court of appeal also affirmed denial of a motion for a new trial filed by Lewis after he learned that Switzer had been charged with, and pleaded no contest to, charges of burglary, elder abuse, and obtaining a controlled substance. In entering these orders, the trial court found that the evidence about Switzer was immaterial and that the jury was not reasonably likely to have acquitted Lewis if it had been aware of this evidence View "People v. Lewis" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from a dispute between outdoor advertising companies and the City over certain billboards with digital displays. Plaintiff Summit Media filed a motion seeking, among other things, an order that “[a]ll digital displays and sign structures” identified in the trial court's April 2013 order “shall be demolished and removed . . . .” Real parties CBS Outdoor wished to resume the use of their sign structures to display static advertising, as they had before the illegal digital conversion. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to demolish the signs and denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to require either the demolition of the structural improvements or the removal of the digital equipment, and that plaintiff offers no persuasive authority for its claim. Further, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff had a personal financial stake in this litigation that was sufficient to warrant its decision to incur significant attorney fees and costs in the vigorous prosecution of this lawsuit. View "Summit Media v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Defendant Kevin Alexander Uffelman pleaded guilty to burglary, for which he was sentenced to four years in the state prison, and to pay a "penal fine" comprised of a $200 fine pursuant to Penal Code sections 672 and 1205 plus related penalty assessments. Defendant argued on appeal that the section 672 fine was unauthorized. The Court of Appeal concluded (after review of the pertinent code and case law) that the fine was indeed authorized. View "California v. Uffelman" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Chris Korpi and plaintiff-respondent Julie Collier were supporters of competing candidates in a local school board election. To educate voters about the candidates he supported, Korpi registered Collier's name and the name of an advocacy group she formed as domain names, and then redirected all Internet users who visited those Web sites to the Web sites for the candidates he supported. Collier filed this action against Korpi, alleging he registered the domain names and illegally used them to mislead the public into thinking she supported his candidates. Korpi moved to strike Collier's complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied Korpi's motion because it found he failed to show Collier's claims arose from free speech activities protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Although the court acknowledged political commentary was the quintessential form of free speech, it concluded Korpi's conduct in registering the domain names and redirecting Internet traffic did not further Korpi's free speech rights. The Court of Appeal disagreed, reversed and remanded. Registering the domain names and redirecting Internet users to the other Web sites assisted Korpi in exercising his free speech rights because those acts provided him with additional forums to reach the public with information about the school board candidates. "The statute required nothing more." Regardless whether Korpi's conduct advanced or assisted him in exercising his free speech rights, Collier argued the anti-SLAPP statute did not protect Korpi's criminal impersonation of another to deceive the public. "It is not enough that the defendant's conduct violated a civil statute; the defendant's conduct must be criminal to deprive the defendant of the broad protection the anti-SLAPP statute provides for free speech and petition activities. [. . .] Korpi does not concede his conduct was criminal and Collier failed to offer evidence establishing Korpi's conduct was criminal as a matter of law." Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying Korpi's motion without determining Collier presented evidence establishing a probability of prevailing on her claims. "Our conclusion the anti-SLAPP statute applies to Korpi's conduct should not be construed as an approval of his conduct." View "Collier v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Foalima appealed his conviction of first degree murder. He argued on appeal to the Court of Appeal that the trial court erred by: (1) refusing to strike a possible accomplice’s testimony after the accomplice testified he did not know the answer to most of the questions asked him; (2) instructing the jury on accomplice testimony; (3) admitting evidence of media coverage of the murder to impeach a witness’s testimony that was recorded in an earlier trial but admitted here; (4) ordering direct victim restitution allegedly for a crime of which defendant was acquitted and that was not the proximate cause of the victim’s damage; (5) imposing jail booking and classification fines without determining defendant’s ability to pay; and (6) imposing restitution fines without determining the defendant’s ability to pay. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "California v. Foalima" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CSU, his former employer, alleging that CSU discriminated against him based on his national origin when it denied his application for a tenured faculty position and consequently terminated him. CSU moved to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion. The court concluded that, under the circumstances, the gravamen of the complaint arises from protected activity. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to determine whether plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of his claims. View "Park v. Bd. of Trustees of CA State Univ." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Duarte Nursery, Inc. sold grape rootstock. It challenged mandatory assessments it had to pay to the California Grape Rootstock Improvement Commission to help fund research for pest-resistant and drought-resistant rootstock, arguing this “Commission Law” and the Commission’s operation as an unconstitutional exercise of the state’s police power in violation of plaintiff’s liberty interests and due process rights under the federal and state Constitutions. In this appeal, instead of claiming impairment of its rights to free speech or free association, plaintiff asserted a right to refuse to help fund research that benefitted the industry as a whole. Plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief and refunds. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants, the Commission and the Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (Secretary). Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Duarte Nursery v. Cal. Grape Rootstock Improvement Comm." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Alamo Recycling, LLC and Chino Valley Recycling, LLC operated “recycling center[s]” where beverage containers sold in California may be redeemed for their “California Redemption Value.” In this action, plaintiffs sued defendant Anheuser Busch Inbev Worldwide, Inc. and other companies that sell or distribute beverages containers in California, alleging that defendants knowingly and “falsely” label beverage containers sold both inside and outside California with “CA CRV,” “California Redemption Value,” or similar labels when, in fact, under California law, only containers purchased inside California may be redeemed in California. The complaint alleged that containers sold outside California are transported into California and redeemed at recycling centers like those operated by plaintiffs, and this exposed plaintiffs to state regulatory fines and penalties, risks rendering the “California Beverage Recycling Fund” insolvent, and thereby risks the economic viability of plaintiffs’ recycling businesses. The trial court sustained defendants’ general demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, dismissed the complaint, and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded that the injunctive and compensatory relief plaintiffs sought could not be awarded by a California court because it would violate the “dormant” commerce clause of the federal Constitution. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment of dismissal. View "Alamo Recycling v. Anheuser Busch Inbev Worldwide" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants for false advertising on the Internet. The trial court denied defendants' Anti-SLAPP, Code of Civ. Proc. 425.16, motion, concluding that defendants had not met their threshold burden of showing that the alleged false advertising fell within the purview of section 425.16. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the trial court correctly denied the anti-SLAPP motion, as the conduct alleged constituted purely commercial speech; plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating the applicability of the commercial speech exemption of section 425.17; with respect to the attorney fees motion, the court concluded that no reasonable basis existed for asserting that the allegedly false advertisements constituted conduct in connection with an issue of public interest, and that the motion was therefore frivolous; and therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorney fees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "LA Taxi v. Indep. Taxi Owners" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Timothy Sherow was originally convicted of nine counts of second degree burglary arising from offenses committed in 2007. He admitted eight prison priors and one strike prior. Sherow was sentenced to a determinate term of 19 years four months. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed counts 7 through 10 for instructional error. However, since the counts had been sentenced concurrently the reversal did not impact the sentence. In November 2014, Sherow filed a petition for resentencing of all five remaining counts of second degree burglary pursuant to Proposition 47. The court found Sherow did not qualify for relief because the loss exceeded $100,000. Sherow appealed, challenging only the decision as to counts 1 and 2. He argued the record did not show the loss as to each count exceeded $950 and thus the two counts should be resentenced as misdemeanors. Sherow's petition sought resentencing as to all five counts without any separate discussion of the counts, no reference to facts or evidence and no argument. Upon review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the People that Sherow had the burden to show the property loss in each of those counts did not exceed $950 and thus fell within the new statutory definition of shoplifting. The Court was satisfied that Sherow's blanket request for resentencing on all counts without any effort to deal with those which might have involved less than $950 or to discuss any facts surrounding the offenses, was fatally defective. Thus the trial court properly denied the petition. View "California v. Sherow" on Justia Law