Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit seeking an injunction to prevent Yelp, a popular website, from making claims about the accuracy and efficacy of its "filter" of unreliable or biased customer reviews. The trial court granted Yelp's special motion to strike plaintiff's complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 because Yelp's statements at issue were matters of public interest. The court concluded that Yelp's representations about its review filter constitute commercial speech squarely within the public speech exemption of section 425.17, subdivision (c) where Yelp's statements about its review filter consists of representations of fact about Yelp's website that are made for the purpose of obtaining approval for, promoting, or securing advertisements on Yelp's website, and Yelp's statements were made in the course of delivering Yelp's website. Further, Yelp's intended audience is an actual or potential buyer or customer, or a person likely to repeat the statement to, or otherwise influence, an actual or potential buyer or customer. The court rejected Yelp's assertion that the federal Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230, barred plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's order. Finally, plaintiff shall be given an opportunity to move to amend his complaint to substitute the real party in interest in this action as plaintiff. View "Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc." on Justia Law

Marvin Estuardo Catalan pleaded guilty to four felonies, including grand theft, identity theft, and two counts of forgery. The court imposed a four-year hybrid or split sentence comprised of a one-year, four-month jail term followed by two years and eight months of mandatory supervision on specified terms and conditions. After Catalan violated the terms of his mandatory supervision, the trial court revoked and reinstated his supervision and added 550 days to his jail sentence. Catalan argued on appeal the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence exceeding the recommended term under the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Catalan" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of violating Penal Code section 288.3, subdivision (a), which prohibits contacting a minor for the purpose of committing various crimes, including, as alleged here, sexual penetration with a person under the age of 18 years. The court ordered defendant placed on formal probation for five years subject to various conditions, including that defendant serve 240 days in the Orange County jail. Defendant’s interactions with the victim were entirely over the Internet, primarily through chat rooms. At the time he met "Jane Doe," she was 14 years old and he was 59 years old, but he represented himself to be only two or three years older than her. The two developed a close relationship, and when Jane Doe was 16 years old, they began having cybersex, which involved watching pornographic videos together, describing various sexual acts they would do to one another, and masturbating together. Defendant was in California during these online interactions, and Jane Doe was in Indiana. Defendant raised numerous contentions on appeal: Jane Doe was not a minor because the age of consent in Indiana was 16 years old, and in any event, he could not have caused the sexual penetration from thousands of miles away; his conviction under section 288.3 violated his constitutional rights to equal protection, privacy, and free speech; and his conviction violated the dormant commerce clause. The Court of Appeal affirmed: "[d]efendant’s seduction of Jane Doe under false pretenses, together with his repeated suggestions that she masturbate, satisfied the statutory elements of intending to participate in causing sexual penetration. Even if Jane Doe was an adult for purposes of applying Indiana law, she was a minor for purposes of applying California law. And we reject the various constitutional challenges defendant raises to the validity of section 288.3 and his conviction in particular." View "California v. Shapiro" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendants James Sweeney II and Patrick Ryan of 65 counts of white-collar crime (all relating to the sale of securities) and found true three special allegations. The court sentenced Sweeney to 33 years and Ryan to 31 years. The court also imposed restitution. On appeal, both defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on count 68 and the convictions on counts 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71, primarily involving multi-level marketing programs. Ryan also claimed various sentencing errors, including those related to fines and restitution.3 Sweeney makes similar arguments. The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence for count 68. The Court also upheld convictions on counts 67 through 71. View "California v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

Seven years after appellant Marjorie L. was appointed guardian of her two granddaughters, A.L. and E.L., the trial court granted a petition to terminate the guardianship filed by the minors’ parents, respondents Jennifer L. and Richard L., after a hearing that took only minutes at which no evidence was introduced, no witness testimony was taken, and no arguments from counsel were heard. The Court of Appeal concluded that this truncated process deprived the guardian of any meaningful hearing or opportunity to object to the petition, and prevented the court from fully considering whether termination was in the best interests of the minors. The Court therefore reversed the order terminating the guardianship and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing before a different judge to consider whether termination is in the minors’ best interests. View "Guardianship of A.L." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against John Travolta, Atlo, and others (collectively, "Atlo"), seeking a declaration as to whether a three-page agreement or a four-page agreement was the enforceable termination agreement between the parties, and whether a confidentiality provision, if one exists, is enforceable. Atlo filed an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) motion to strike the first amended complaint under Code Civ. Proc., 425.16. The court held that a declaratory relief action filed in response to an attorney's letters threatening litigation over the contract dispute does not come within the provisions of an anti-SLAPP lawsuit where the lawsuit sought a declaration regarding the terms of plaintiff's termination agreement, not whether Atlo may send demand letters or threaten litigation. Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court properly denied the motion to strike the complaint and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Gotterba v. Travolta" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendants-appellants Leopoldo Chavez and Edward Elias of two counts of first degree murder, and found true special circumstances of robbery-murder and multiple murders. The jury further found that Chavez and Elias were armed with a firearm. Following their convictions, the court sentenced Chavez and Elias to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment each, without the possibility of parole, plus an additional consecutive year. The court later recalled the sentences to consider whether to impose a lesser punishment because Chavez and Elias were under the age of 18 at the time of their offenses. After a further hearing, the court declined to modify the sentences. Chavez and Elias appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to convict them of first degree murder or to support the special circumstances findings. Furthermore, they argued: (1) the court erred in instructing the jury using a modified version of CALCRIM No. 376; (2) the court erred by not instructing the jury regarding the natural and probable consequences doctrine; (3) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing arguments; (4) the sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution because they were juveniles at the time of their offenses; and (5) the court erred by imposing parole revocation fines. The Court of Appeal concluded there was sufficient evidence to support Chavez's and Elias's murder convictions as well as the jury's felony-murder and multiple-murder special circumstances findings. The Court rejected defendants' claims that they were prejudiced by instructional error and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. Because defendants were sentenced before "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S.Ct. 2455) and "People v. Gutierrez" (58 Cal.4th 1354 (2014)) were decided and, because the record did not show that the trial court had the opportunity to directly consider the ultimate issue presented in those cases, the Court of Appeal reversed the life sentences without possibility of parole and remanded for resentencing in light of Miller and Gutierrez. The Court also agreed the trial court erred in imposing parole revocation fines. View "California v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Darrell Chenault appealed his convictions on 13 counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age, and two counts of forcible lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age. On appeal, he argued: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a support dog to be present during the testimony of two child witnesses without individualized showings of necessity; and (2) the presence of the support dog was inherently prejudicial and violated his federal constitutional rights to a fair trial and to confront the witnesses against him. Because the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the support dog to be present during the testimony of the two child witnesses, it affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Chenault" on Justia Law

Defendant Kenneth Wesley Brown was convicted of possession of a "short-barreled shotgun." Defendant had been found in possession of the weapon in his home. California's statutory definition of "short-barreled shotgun" includes a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long or with an overall length of less than 26 inches, regardless of the length of the barrel. The barrel of defendant's shotgun was one quarter inch longer than the minimum length of 18 inches, but the overall length was 25 and a half inches - too short by half an inch. He appealed, contending the statute, on its face and as applied, violated the Second Amendment's right to bear arms and equal protection. He also claimed the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal due to the insufficiency of evidence, and made instructional errors. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that California's ban on shotguns with an overall length of less than 26 inches did not violate the Second Amendment or equal protection. The Court also rejected defendant's other contentions. View "California v. Brown" on Justia Law

Olive Lane Industrial Park owned real property that was taken by eminent domain. Within four years after the eminent domain order, Olive Lane acquired another parcel of property. About five years after the eminent domain order, for purposes of calculating property taxes on its new property, Olive Lane filed a request with the San Diego County tax assessor to transfer the condemned property's base year value to the replacement property, as permitted by California Constitution, article XIIIA. The County denied Olive Lane's request as untimely. After evaluating the constitutional and statutory provisions as a whole, the Court of Appeal concluded the Legislature did not intend to deprive a taxpayer who loses property through eminent domain of the right to obtain prospective application of the base year value transfer in the event the replacement property is acquired within the four-year statutory period but the claim is filed after the four-year period. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Olive Lake Industrial Park v. Co. of San Diego" on Justia Law