Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A.B., a 42-year-old individual with a longstanding diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, had been receiving mental health services in San Francisco since 2008, including numerous psychiatric hospitalizations and crisis interventions. He was previously under conservatorship, which ensured compliance with medication, but historically disengaged from treatment and decompensated when conservatorship ended. In October 2023, following a psychiatric incident at home involving paranoia and disruptive behavior, A.B. was hospitalized. His mother, who provided housing, testified to his history of aggression and repeated decompensation when not medicated, stating she would not allow him to live with her absent a conservatorship and mandatory medication order.The San Francisco County Superior Court initially appointed the public conservator and imposed an involuntary medication order. After a mistrial in April 2023, the parties resolved the matter by conservatorship without a medication order, but following further decompensation, the conservator sought renewal with an involuntary medication order. At the 2025 court trial, testimony from A.B.’s mother and treating psychiatrist indicated that A.B. lacked insight into his illness, would not reliably take medication without a legal mandate, and was unable to maintain shelter independently. Although A.B. testified that he now recognized his diagnosis and would comply with medication, the court credited the testimony of his mother and psychiatrist over his own.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that A.B. was presently gravely disabled due to his mental disorder and unable to provide for his own shelter without medication, which he would not take absent a court order. The appellate court also affirmed the finding that A.B. was incompetent to give or withhold informed consent for psychotropic medication. The orders renewing the conservatorship and involuntary medication were affirmed. View "Conservatorship of A.B." on Justia Law

A completed driver reexamination request was submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) by a confidential reporter, prompting the DMV to initiate a review of Richard Louis Brown’s driving qualifications. Brown was notified that he must submit a medical evaluation. His physician, a new provider to Brown, recommended a driving test but did not advise against driving. Following a reexamination, Brown failed a driving test, and his license was suspended. A second hearing officer later reinstated his license, finding no medical basis for the initial suspension and stating that Brown should not have been required to take the tests.Brown filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, seeking disclosure of the reporter’s identity and criminal sanctions against the reporter for alleged false information. The DMV opposed, explaining the confidentiality policy for reporters is intended to promote road safety and prevent retaliatory actions. The trial court denied the petition, applying a public interest balancing test and finding that the interest in maintaining reporter confidentiality outweighed the interest in disclosure. Judgment was entered against Brown, who then appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held that due process was not violated by the DMV’s nondisclosure of the reporter’s identity. The court found that the risk of erroneous deprivation was low because the suspension was based on Brown’s failed driving test, not the reporter’s complaint, and Brown received notice and two hearings. The court concluded that neither federal nor California constitutional due process required disclosure of the reporter’s identity under the circumstances and affirmed the superior court’s judgment denying Brown’s petition. View "Brown v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

The case involves an individual, B.K., who has schizophrenia and has been under a conservatorship pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act since 2019. The conservatorship was initially established after B.K. was found to be gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder, and it has been renewed annually following court hearings. In several renewal proceedings, B.K. expressed her desire to contest the conservatorship, at times requesting either a court or jury trial. At the most recent renewal proceeding, B.K. initially requested a jury trial but later, after consulting with her attorney, chose to proceed with a court trial instead. B.K. confirmed this choice in open court.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County conducted the court trial, during which expert testimony and B.K.’s own statements supported a finding that she remained gravely disabled and unable to care for herself due to her mental illness. The court renewed the conservatorship for another year. B.K. appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to adequately advise her of her right to a jury trial or to ensure that her waiver of that right was knowing and intelligent.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. Applying de novo review to statutory claims and substantial evidence review to the trial court’s implied finding, the Court of Appeal concluded that B.K. was aware of her right to a jury trial and that, under the totality of the circumstances, her waiver—made through counsel and confirmed in court—was knowing and intelligent. The appellate court held that direct advisement or a personal waiver was not required under the LPS Act when counsel confers with the conservatee and there is no indication of lack of authority or client understanding. The court affirmed the ruling, finding no reversible error. View "Conservatorship of B.K." on Justia Law

A licensed sidewalk vendor who had operated outside Petco Park in San Diego since 2009 was cited multiple times in mid-2024 under newly enacted city ordinances regulating sidewalk vending. On two occasions, city officials also impounded his merchandise and, in one instance, his sales proceeds. The vendor, who holds a valid city vending permit, alleged that the new ordinances, particularly those related to impoundment and restrictions on vending during certain hours and events, conflicted with state law enacted in 2018 designed to protect the rights of sidewalk vendors. He sought a writ of mandate, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of these local provisions.The Superior Court of San Diego County denied the vendor’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court acknowledged the negative impact on the vendor’s livelihood but found there was a minimal probability of success on the merits, reasoning that the city’s restrictions were permissible under the state law’s allowance for regulations related to health, safety, or welfare. The court concluded that the balance of harms favored the city, given public interest considerations, and thus refused to enjoin enforcement of the challenged ordinances.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, examined both the factual record and the legal questions concerning the interplay between the municipal code and state law. The appellate court held that the city’s ordinances authorizing impoundment of vending equipment and restricting vending hours in nonresidential areas more stringently than for other businesses are in direct conflict with state law. The court found the trial court erred by not adequately considering these conflicts. The appellate court reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to apply the correct legal standards and further develop the record as needed. View "Mustaqeem v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that the City of Berkeley violated the Ralph M. Brown Act during three city council meetings in late 2023 and early 2024. At each meeting, disruptions from attendees prevented the council from conducting business. The mayor determined that order could not be restored by removing disruptive individuals but did not order the meeting room cleared. Instead, the meetings were recessed and reconvened in a different, smaller room. The press was allowed to attend in person, while the public could join by video, but the new location could not accommodate all nondisruptive members of the public. No attempt was made to restore order by removing disruptive individuals, nor was the meeting room ordered cleared.The Alameda County Superior Court sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, holding that section 54957.9 of the Brown Act does not require the city council to first attempt to remove disruptive individuals before determining that order cannot be restored. The trial court further found that the city council complied with the statute by recessing and reconvening the meetings in a different room with press attendance. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that, under section 54957.9, a legislative body may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session, but the statute does not authorize relocating the meeting to another room. The court found that recessing and reconvening in a new location is not equivalent to ordering the original meeting room cleared. Plaintiffs stated a claim for relief by alleging that the city council failed to order the meeting room cleared and instead moved the meetings. The judgment was reversed. View "Berkeley People's Alliance v. City of Berkeley" on Justia Law

The petitioner is an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence of 45 years to life for first degree murder, who challenged the timing of his initial youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051. His main contention was that, under regulations adopted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) following Proposition 57 and Assembly Bill 965, only educational merit credits are counted toward advancing his youth parole eligible date (YPED), whereas a wider range of credits—including good conduct, milestone completion, rehabilitative achievement, and extraordinary conduct credits—may be applied to advance the minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for other indeterminately sentenced inmates. The petitioner claimed this distinction deprived him of thousands of days of credit and delayed his parole hearing compared to similarly situated inmates.Previously, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District summarily denied the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. The California Supreme Court then granted review, transferring the case back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to issue an order to show cause and reconsider the petitioner’s claims.Upon review, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District considered both statutory and constitutional arguments, including equal protection and due process claims. The court applied rational basis review to the equal protection claim, emphasizing the deferential standard and the need for a rational relationship between the regulatory distinction and a legitimate state interest. The court concluded that limiting credits for youth offender parole hearings to educational merit credits serves administrative and operational needs, promoting certainty and stability in scheduling, and is rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives. The court found no merit to the statutory, equal protection, or due process challenges and denied habeas corpus relief, discharging the petition. View "In re Thai" on Justia Law

For many years, one company exclusively provided emergency medical services (EMS) in a California county. Seeking improvements, the county initiated a competitive bidding process, issuing a request for proposals (RFP) and identifying policy goals such as improved service, efficiency, and reinvestment. Two entities submitted proposals. After evaluation by a review committee, one received the highest cumulative score, while the other received higher scores from most individual evaluators. The county determined the scores were substantially equivalent and proceeded to negotiate with both parties, ultimately awarding the contract to the bidder that did not have the highest cumulative score.The company that lost the contract protested the decision, arguing the county was required to negotiate only with the highest-scoring proposer, as set forth in the RFP. After an unsuccessful protest, the losing bidder first sued in federal court, where its federal antitrust claims were dismissed under the Parker immunity doctrine, and the district court declined to address state law claims. The company then filed a new action in San Bernardino County Superior Court, seeking a writ of mandate and a preliminary injunction. The superior court found the county’s selection process was ministerial and that the RFP required negotiations only with the highest-scoring proposer. The court granted a preliminary injunction, halting the contract’s implementation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that neither the governing statute (the EMS Act) nor the RFP imposed a ministerial duty on the county to negotiate exclusively with the highest-scoring proposer. The court further concluded the county acted within its discretionary authority and did not abuse its discretion by considering both proposals. The appellate court reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the superior court, directing it to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction and reconsider the bond amount. View "American Medical Response of Inland Empire v. County of San Bernardino" on Justia Law

The appellant, a Ventura County Deputy Sheriff, suffered two work-related back injuries in 2014 and 2015. Medical evaluations revealed degenerative disc disease and herniation at the L5-S1 level. Multiple physicians recommended surgical intervention, and the County authorized surgery to address his condition. However, the appellant declined the recommended procedures, citing concerns about surgical outcomes and referencing anecdotal experiences of colleagues. Later, his condition progressed, and more extensive surgery was suggested, but authorization for additional procedures was denied due to insufficient evidence. Despite ongoing pain, the appellant also declined to participate in a recommended home exercise program and a work hardening regimen.After the appellant applied for service-connected disability retirement, his application was challenged by the County and assigned to VCERA’s hearing officer for review. During the administrative hearing, the appellant testified about his refusal of surgery and physical therapy, while medical experts presented conflicting views on his prognosis and ability to return to work. The hearing officer found that the appellant had unreasonably refused recommended medical treatments with a high probability of success, and that his refusal likely worsened his condition, making him ineligible for service-connected disability retirement benefits. The Board adopted these findings and denied his application.The Superior Court of Ventura County denied the appellant’s petition for a writ of administrative mandate, concluding that his unreasonable refusal of authorized surgery and other treatments constituted valid grounds to deny benefits under the doctrine of avoidable consequences/mitigation of damages. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed this decision. The court held that a disability retirement application may be denied if the disability is caused, continued, or aggravated by an unreasonable refusal to undergo medical treatment, even if the refused treatment is no longer effective due to the passage of time. View "Mendoza v. Bd. of Retirement of the Ventura County" on Justia Law

A longtime deputy sheriff was convicted by a federal jury of mail and wire fraud after she submitted an insurance claim for items stolen during a burglary at her home, some of which she falsely claimed as her own but actually belonged to her employer, the sheriff’s office. She also used her employer’s fax machine and cover sheet in communicating with the insurance company and misrepresented her supervisor’s identity. The criminal conduct arose after a romantic relationship with a former inmate ended badly, leading to the burglary, but the fraud conviction was based on her false insurance claim, not on the relationship or the burglary itself.Following her conviction, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) determined that her crimes constituted conduct “arising out of or in the performance of her official duties” under Government Code section 7522.72, part of the Public Employees Pension Reform Act, and partially forfeited her pension. The administrative law judge and the San Francisco Superior Court both upheld CalPERS’s decision, reasoning that her actions were sufficiently connected to her employment, particularly in her misuse of employer property and resources and in the context of her relationship with the former inmate.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the statute requires a specific causal nexus between the criminal conduct and the employee’s official duties, not merely any job-related connection. The court found that the deputy’s fraudulent insurance claim, although it referenced employer property and resources, did not arise out of or in the performance of her official duties as required by the statute. Accordingly, the pension forfeiture determination was set aside. View "Myres v. Bd. of Admin. for CalPERS" on Justia Law

A group of petitioners obtained a default judgment exceeding $8 million against two corporations for fraud and misrepresentation related to a Ponzi scheme. The corporations’ presidents had previously been found guilty of criminal fraud and ordered to pay restitution, but this did not cover all losses suffered by the petitioners. The petitioners then applied to the California Secretary of State for restitution from the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund, relying on their default judgment as the basis for their claim.The Secretary of State determined that the applications were ineligible, treating them as resubmissions of previously denied applications and closing the file without further review. The petitioners responded by filing a verified petition in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, seeking an order directing payment from the fund. The trial court concluded it had jurisdiction, deemed the Secretary’s response a denial, and granted the petition. The court found that the Secretary had waived any objections to the sufficiency of the applications by failing to request more information and ordered payment to the petitioners.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held that the trial court had jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s determination. The appellate court found insufficient evidentiary support for the Secretary’s conclusion that the applications were impermissible resubmissions, requiring that determination to be set aside. However, it also concluded that the trial court erred in finding the Secretary waived her other objections; the Secretary retains the authority to assess the merits of the applications. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case to the Secretary for reconsideration, specifying that the Secretary cannot reassert the resubmission determination or deny the applications solely for facial deficiencies in the underlying complaint. The petitioners’ and Secretary’s respective burdens at different procedural stages were clarified. View "Amaro v. Weber" on Justia Law