Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves the People of the State of California, represented by the San Diego City Attorney, who filed a complaint against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. The complaint alleged that Kaiser violated the unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising law (FAL) by failing to maintain and update accurate health plan provider directories (PDs) as required by California Health and Safety Code section 1367.27. The People claimed that Kaiser’s inaccuracies in PDs misled consumers and harmed competitors.The Superior Court of San Diego County granted Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment, exercising its discretion to abstain from adjudicating the action. The court reasoned that the legislative framework did not impose an accuracy requirement but rather outlined procedural steps for maintaining PDs. The court concluded that adjudicating the People’s claims would require it to assume regulatory functions and interfere with policy judgments already made by the Legislature and the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC).The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by applying the doctrine of judicial abstention. The appellate court found that section 1367.27 sets forth clear mandates for PD accuracy, which the trial court could enforce through its ordinary judicial functions. The appellate court held that the People’s enforcement of these statutory requirements would not interfere with the DMHC’s regulatory functions and that the trial court’s abstention was based on a mistaken view of the law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter with directions to deny Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment. View "P. ex rel. Elliott v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan" on Justia Law

In November 2014, the plaintiff purchased a recreational vehicle (RV) from a dealership, with the defendant bank financing the purchase. The sales contract inaccurately reflected the downpayment as $19,100 in cash instead of $1,000 in cash and $18,100 in trade-in value. The plaintiff later discovered issues with the RV and filed a lawsuit in February 2017, alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) due to the incorrect downpayment disclosure.The Superior Court of Fresno County reviewed the case and concluded that the four-year statute of limitations for written contracts applied, rather than the one-year statute for statutory penalties. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of the plaintiff against the dealership for violating the ASFA, and the dealership's liability was extended to the bank under the Federal Trade Commission’s holder rule. The court entered judgment requiring the bank to accept the return of the RV and pay the plaintiff $42,263.64.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and determined that the rescission and restitution remedy under the ASFA is a penalty. The court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations for actions upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture applied. The court noted that the ASFA imposes strict liability without regard to actual damages or fault, and the legislative history indicated the remedy was intended as a penalty. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Pompey v. Bank of Stockton" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a taxpayers' association and a water district over the imposition of groundwater replenishment charges. The taxpayers' association alleged that the water district's charges violated constitutional provisions and unfairly benefited large agricultural businesses. The association sought a writ of mandate to stop the collection of these charges and to vacate the resolutions imposing them. They also claimed conversion, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) against the water district's board members, general manager, and consulting firms.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, which sought to strike several causes of action on the grounds that they arose from protected activities. The court found that the public interest exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute applied. Additionally, the court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the first amended petition and complaint, finding the claims time-barred under the validation statutes. The court also awarded over $180,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, deeming the anti-SLAPP motion frivolous.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the public interest exemption did not apply because the relief sought could only be provided by the water district, not the individual defendants. The court found that the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted for most causes of action, except for conversion and the writ of mandate against the general manager. Consequently, the fee award was reversed. The court also affirmed the demurrer ruling, as the claims against the individual defendants were not legally sufficient. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Powell" on Justia Law

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for a new vehicle, which later exhibited multiple defects. Despite several repair attempts, the issues persisted. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking various forms of relief including replacement or restitution, damages, and attorney fees.The case proceeded to trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the jury found the defendant liable and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, the jury did not find the defendant’s violation to be willful, thus no civil penalties were awarded. Subsequently, both parties filed motions regarding costs and attorney fees. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, limiting the plaintiff to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and awarding the defendant post-offer costs based on a prior settlement offer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court addressed two main issues: whether a section 998 offer consisting of two simultaneous offers is valid, and whether an offer that promises to pay for statutory categories of damages with disputes resolved by a third party is sufficiently certain. The court concluded that simultaneous offers are generally invalid under section 998 due to the uncertainty they create for the trial court in determining whether the judgment is more favorable than the offer. However, since only one of the defendant’s two offers was invalid, the remaining valid offer was operative. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was limited to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and the defendant was entitled to post-offer costs. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law

Kenneth and Janet Lathrop purchased a motorhome from a dealer in California, manufactured by Thor Motor Coach, Inc. They later sued the dealer and Thor under the Song-Beverly Consumers Warranty Act and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), alleging defects in the motorhome and failure to perform necessary repairs. Thor moved to stay the action based on a forum selection clause in its warranty, which designated Indiana as the exclusive forum for disputes and included a jury trial waiver and an Indiana choice-of-law clause. Thor acknowledged these provisions were unenforceable under California law and offered to stipulate that California substantive rights would apply in an Indiana court.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Thor’s motion to stay, finding the forum selection clause mandatory and not unreasonable. The court placed the burden on the Lathrops to show that enforcing the clause was unreasonable. The Lathrops appealed, arguing that the trial court applied the wrong standard and that Thor did not meet its burden to show that litigating in Indiana would not diminish their unwaivable rights under California law.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred by placing the burden on the Lathrops instead of Thor. The appellate court held that Thor did not meet its burden to show that litigating in Indiana would not substantially diminish the Lathrops’ rights under the Song-Beverly Act and the CLRA. The court also found that enforcing the forum selection clause based on Thor’s proposed stipulation would violate California public policy and that the stipulation was insufficient to protect the Lathrops’ unwaivable statutory rights. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order granting the motion to stay and directed the trial court to deny the motion. View "Lathrop v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who are users of Coinbase's cryptocurrency platform, filed a complaint against Coinbase, Inc. alleging violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the California False Advertising Law (FAL), and the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). They sought public injunctive relief, claiming Coinbase misrepresented its security features to the public. Coinbase's user agreement, which plaintiffs accepted, included an arbitration clause. Coinbase moved to compel arbitration, arguing the plaintiffs sought private injunctive relief, which is subject to arbitration.The San Francisco Superior Court denied Coinbase’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiffs sought public injunctive relief, which is not subject to arbitration under California law. The court noted that the complaint exclusively sought public injunctive relief and did not request any relief that would solely benefit the plaintiffs or existing Coinbase customers. The court also referenced a related federal case, Aggarwal I, where plaintiffs sought individual relief, supporting the conclusion that the current complaint sought public injunctive relief.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiffs’ complaint indeed sought public injunctive relief. The court explained that public injunctive relief under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL is intended to prohibit unlawful acts that threaten future injury to the public, rather than redress individual wrongs. The court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations and requests for relief were aimed at preventing Coinbase from continuing its allegedly deceptive practices, which primarily benefit the public. Consequently, the arbitration provision in Coinbase’s user agreement could not compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims for public injunctive relief. View "Kramer v. Coinbase, Inc." on Justia Law

A former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Information Practices Act (IPA). The professor claimed that the university failed to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations for his bipolar II disorder, and that it invaded his privacy by leaking information about student complaints and his disability accommodations to the media.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary adjudication in favor of the Regents on the claims of failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and invasion of privacy. The court also denied the professor’s motion to compel responses to certain discovery requests and his request for a retrial on the cause of action for which the jury left the verdict form blank. The jury found in favor of the Regents on all other claims except for the personnel file cause of action, which the jury did not address due to the instructions on the verdict form.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the claims of failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to provide reasonable accommodations, finding no prejudicial error. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel discovery, agreeing that the requests were overly broad and protected by the reporter’s privilege. However, the appellate court reversed the summary adjudication of the invasion of privacy cause of action, finding that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the Regents violated the IPA by leaking information to the media. The court also reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Wentworth v. UC Regents" on Justia Law

Petitioners purchased a new 2020 Ford Super Duty F-250 from Fairway Ford in San Bernardino, financing the purchase through the dealer and signing a sale contract that included an arbitration provision. The truck developed mechanical issues during the warranty period, and after unsuccessful repair attempts by Ford of Ventura, the petitioners filed a lawsuit under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against Ford Motor Company (FMC) and Ford of Ventura. FMC moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the sale contract between the petitioners and the non-party dealer.The trial court granted FMC's motion to compel arbitration, finding that FMC could enforce the arbitration provision as a third-party beneficiary of the sale contract and that the petitioners were estopped from refusing to arbitrate their claims. The petitioners moved for reconsideration twice, citing appellate decisions that disapproved of the precedent relied upon by the trial court. Both motions for reconsideration were denied, with the trial court maintaining its original order compelling arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that FMC and Ford of Ventura are neither intended third-party beneficiaries of the sale contract nor entitled to enforce the arbitration provision under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The court found that the sale contract did not express an intent to benefit FMC and that the petitioners' claims against FMC and Ford of Ventura were based on warranty obligations independent of the sale contract. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its orders compelling arbitration and denying reconsideration, and to enter a new order denying FMC's motion to compel arbitration. View "Rivera v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff purchased a new 2014 Kia Optima and soon experienced issues with the vehicle's transmission. Despite multiple visits to the dealership, the problem persisted. The plaintiff requested a buyback from Kia Motors America, Inc. (Kia), but Kia initially declined, citing an inability to replicate the issue. Eventually, Kia offered to repurchase the vehicle, but the plaintiff found the terms unacceptable and continued to use the car while pursuing legal action.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding restitution and a civil penalty for Kia's willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The jury awarded $42,568.90 in restitution and $85,317.80 in civil penalties, totaling $127,976.70. Kia filed post-trial motions to reduce the restitution amount and to strike the civil penalty, arguing that certain costs should not be included and that there was insufficient evidence of willfulness. The trial court partially granted Kia's motions, striking the civil penalty but upholding the restitution amount.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the restitution award should exclude the cost of the manufacturer’s rebate, the optional theft deterrent device, the optional service contract, and certain insurance premiums. The court found that these costs were not recoverable under the Act. However, the court found substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Kia knowingly violated the Act or did not act with a good faith and reasonable belief that it was complying. The court affirmed the trial court's order for a new trial on the issue of the civil penalty, directing that the new trial be consistent with its opinion and limited to the 21-month period between Kia's violation and the plaintiff's lawsuit. View "Valdovinos v. Kia Motors America, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff purchased a new 2014 Kia Optima and soon experienced issues with the vehicle's reverse gear. Despite multiple visits to the dealership, the problem persisted. The plaintiff requested a buyback from Kia Motors America, Inc. (Kia), but Kia's investigations, including installing a flight recorder, did not confirm the defect. Kia eventually offered to repurchase the vehicle, but the plaintiff rejected the offer and continued to use the car until filing a lawsuit under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the Act).The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding restitution and a civil penalty for Kia's willful violation of the Act. Kia filed posttrial motions challenging the restitution amount and the civil penalty. The court partially granted Kia's motions, striking the civil penalty for insufficient evidence but denying the motion to reduce the restitution amount.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the restitution award should not include the cost of the optional service contract, certain insurance premiums, and other specific amounts. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant a new trial on the civil penalty, finding substantial evidence that Kia may have had a good faith and reasonable belief that the vehicle was not defective.The appellate court directed the trial court to amend the judgment to exclude the non-recoverable amounts from the restitution award and to conduct a new trial on the civil penalty, limited to the period before the lawsuit was filed. The court clarified that a violation of the Act is willful only if it is deliberate, knowing, or not based on a good faith and reasonable belief of compliance. View "Valdovinos v. Kia Motors America, Inc." on Justia Law