Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority challenged a decision by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to issue a phase I driverless autonomous vehicle (AV) deployment permit to Waymo, LLC for fared passenger service in San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County. The petitioners argued that the PUC failed to follow the law and disregarded significant public safety issues. However, the record showed that the PUC considered and responded to the safety concerns raised by the petitioners, noting that few incidents involved Waymo driverless AVs, each was minor, and none involved injuries.The PUC had previously issued a decision establishing a pilot program for the regulation of AV passenger carriers, which included both drivered and driverless AVs. The petitioners participated in these proceedings but did not challenge the decision at that time. Waymo submitted an advice letter in December 2022 seeking a phase I driverless AV deployment permit, which was protested by the San Francisco entities. The PUC's Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division circulated a draft resolution authorizing Waymo's permit, and after considering comments and holding meetings, the PUC issued a final resolution in August 2023, authorizing Waymo to provide fared driverless AV service.The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and found that the PUC acted within its authority and did not abuse its discretion. The court noted that the PUC's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including data showing that Waymo driverless AVs had not been involved in any collisions resulting in injuries. The court also upheld the PUC's use of the advice letter process, as it was authorized by the PUC's prior decision. The court denied the relief requested by the petitioners, affirming the PUC's decision to issue the phase I driverless AV deployment permit to Waymo. View "City and County of San Francisco v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

Santa Rita Holdings, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) from the County of Santa Barbara to cultivate cannabis on a 2.54-acre parcel owned by Kim Hughes. The only access to this parcel is via a private easement over land owned by JCCrandall, LLC. JCCrandall objected to the use of its easement for cannabis transportation, citing federal law and the terms of the easement deed. Despite these objections, the County granted the CUP, and the County’s Board of Supervisors upheld this decision on appeal.JCCrandall then petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate, challenging the County’s determination that the easement provided adequate access for the project. JCCrandall argued that the use of the easement for cannabis activities was prohibited by federal law and the easement deed, that state law required its consent for such use, and that the road did not meet County standards. The trial court denied the petition, applying the substantial evidence standard and finding the County’s decision supported by substantial evidence.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the trial court should have applied the independent judgment standard because JCCrandall’s right to exclude unauthorized persons from its property is a fundamental vested right. The court further held that under federal law, cannabis is illegal, and thus, JCCrandall cannot be forced to allow its property to be used for cannabis transportation. The court also found that the use of the easement for cannabis activities exceeded the scope of the easement, which was created when cannabis was illegal under both state and federal law. The judgment was reversed, and costs were awarded to JCCrandall. View "JCCrandall, LLC v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

The petitioner was charged with first-degree murder. During the investigation, the prosecution informed the defense that one of the investigating officers had a sustained finding of dishonesty, and the officer’s department intended to release related records under Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The defense counsel requested these records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Concurrently, the petitioner filed a Pitchess motion seeking additional Brady material from the officer’s personnel file. The trial court, after an in-camera review, found no additional Brady material and ordered the disclosure of the records related to the officer’s dishonesty, but issued a protective order limiting their dissemination.The petitioner sought an extraordinary writ of mandate to vacate the protective order, arguing that the records were nonconfidential and subject to public inspection under section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The trial court had issued the protective order under Evidence Code section 1045(e), which restricts the use of disclosed records to the court proceeding.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court noted that Senate Bill No. 1421 amended sections 832.7 and 832.8 to make certain law enforcement personnel records, including those involving sustained findings of dishonesty, nonconfidential and subject to public disclosure. The court held that the trial court should not have issued a protective order for records that are nonconfidential under section 832.7(b)(1)(C). Consequently, the appellate court granted the petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate its protective order concerning the records of the officer’s sustained finding of dishonesty. View "Banuelos v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 1996, the City of Perris disbanded its police department and contracted with Riverside County for law enforcement services, leading to the hiring of former Perris PD officers as deputies in the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. The plaintiffs, former Perris PD officers or their surviving spouses, argued that this transition constituted a merger under Government Code section 20508, entitling them to more favorable pension benefits from the County and CalPERS.The Superior Court of Riverside County ruled that section 20508 only applies when there is a merger of contracts between successive employing agencies and CalPERS. The court found no such merger occurred because Riverside County did not assume any municipal functions of the City of Perris. Consequently, the service pensions for the former Perris PD officers and the Sheriff’s Department deputies were calculated separately under the distinct contracts each entity had with CalPERS.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that section 20508 requires an actual merger of CalPERS contracts, which did not happen in this case. The County did not assume the City’s municipal functions, and no steps were taken to merge the contracts. Therefore, the County and CalPERS were not required to treat the former Perris PD officers’ service as service with the Sheriff’s Department. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, concluding that the requirements for a contract merger under section 20508 were not met. View "Petree v. Pub. Employees' Retirement System" on Justia Law

The San Diego City Attorney filed a complaint against Experian Data Corp. on March 6, 2018, alleging a violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) due to Experian's failure to promptly notify consumers of a data breach as required by Civil Code section 1798.82(a). The complaint sought civil penalties and injunctive relief. Experian demurred, arguing the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations. The trial court overruled the demurrer and denied summary judgment motions from both parties, finding the discovery rule could apply to delay the accrual of the claim.The trial court later granted Experian's motion in limine to exclude evidence of civil penalties, concluding the discovery rule did not apply to the UCL claim because it was a non-fraud claim and an enforcement action seeking civil penalties. The court also denied the City Attorney's motion for reconsideration and motion to file a Third Amended Complaint. The parties then stipulated to dismiss the entire complaint, and the City Attorney appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the discovery rule could apply to delay the accrual of the UCL claim. The court found that the nature of the claim, the enforcement action seeking civil penalties, and the involvement of a governmental entity did not preclude the application of the discovery rule. The court reversed the trial court's orders granting Experian's motion in limine and denying reconsideration, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine when the UCL claim accrued based on the actual or constructive knowledge of the relevant actors. The court also vacated the order denying the City Attorney's request to file a Third Amended Complaint. View "P. v. Experian Data Corp." on Justia Law

In 2021, the San Diego City Council approved new franchise agreements granting San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) the exclusive right to provide gas and electric services in San Diego. Kathryn Burton, a San Diego resident, filed a lawsuit against the City and the Council members, alleging a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Burton claimed that the Council members had discussed and agreed on their votes in a "secret serial meeting" using the mayor as an intermediary before approving the agreements.The Superior Court of San Diego County allowed SDG&E to intervene as a defendant. SDG&E, along with the City defendants, moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, concluding that Burton failed to comply with the Brown Act's requirement to make a prelitigation demand to the legislative body to cure or correct the alleged violation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. Burton argued that she had satisfied the demand requirement through letters sent by her later-hired attorney, Maria Severson. However, the court found that Severson's letters did not mention Burton and were not sent on her behalf. The court held that Burton did not comply with the statutory requirement to make a demand before filing the lawsuit, as required by section 54960.1 of the Government Code.The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, concluding that Burton's appeal lacked merit due to her failure to comply with the demand requirement. The court also found that Burton's challenge to the order allowing SDG&E to intervene was moot, as the summary judgment was properly granted regardless of SDG&E's participation. View "Burton v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Leonardo Garcia filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, seeking relief from his convictions for second-degree murder and attempted premeditated murder. The trial court found Garcia had made a prima facie case for relief, issued an order to show cause, and set an evidentiary hearing. Garcia's counsel subpoenaed the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for contact information of two witnesses, but the trial court granted the LAPD's motion to quash, ruling that section 1172.6 did not allow for postconviction discovery. Garcia then filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging this decision.The trial court had previously found Garcia guilty of first-degree murder and other charges, but on appeal, his first-degree murder conviction was reversed due to a change in the law, and his sentence was reduced to second-degree murder. Garcia's subsequent petitions for resentencing were initially denied, but his third petition led to the current proceedings. The trial court's decision to quash the subpoena was based on the belief that the evidentiary hearing should be limited to the facts presented at trial.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and concluded that section 1172.6 allows for postconviction discovery after an order to show cause is issued. The court held that denying Garcia the ability to obtain relevant evidence would thwart his right to present or respond to new or additional evidence at the evidentiary hearing. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion by preventing Garcia from obtaining contact information for the witnesses, which could be crucial for his defense against new theories of liability. The appellate court granted Garcia's petition for a writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order granting the LAPD's motion to quash and to issue a new order denying the motion. View "Garcia v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case involves the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) challenging the County of Los Angeles and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) over the implementation of Penal Code sections 13670 and 13510.8. These sections, effective January 1, 2022, prohibit law enforcement gang participation and authorize revocation of peace officer certification for serious misconduct, including gang participation. On May 12, 2023, the OIG sent letters to 35 Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) deputies, directing them to participate in interviews about law enforcement gangs and to display and provide photographs of certain tattoos. ALADS filed an unfair labor practice claim and sought injunctive relief, arguing that the interviews violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Ordinance (ERO).The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining the OIG from conducting the interviews until the County completed its meet-and-confer obligations under the MMBA or until the unfair labor practice claim was adjudicated. The court found that the interview directive had significant and adverse effects on the deputies' working conditions, thus triggering the duty to meet and confer.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the OIG’s interview directive, which required deputies to disclose their own and their colleagues' gang affiliations under threat of discipline, had significant and adverse effects on working conditions. The court held that these effects necessitated bargaining under the MMBA. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the interim harm, noting the lack of compelling need for immediate investigation and the potential irreparable harm to ALADS from the County’s failure to meet and confer. View "Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

Robert Mann, a taxpayer, filed a lawsuit against the State of California and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), challenging CHP’s vehicle impound policies. Mann argued that the impoundment of vehicles without a warrant and inadequate notice procedures constituted illegal expenditures of public funds. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent what he characterized as wasteful, unlawful, and unconstitutional law enforcement policies. The trial court granted a permanent injunction requiring CHP to consider vehicle owners’ ability to pay towing and storage fees during impound hearings and vehicle release procedures, and to revise its notice form to advise owners of procedures for retrieving impounded vehicles.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially reviewed the case. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, the trial court granted a motion for judgment against Youth Justice Coalition and entered judgment in favor of defendant Warren A. Stanley, who had retired before the trial. The court found that Stanley, as a former public officer, was no longer a proper defendant. The trial court issued a permanent injunction requiring CHP to revise its vehicle impound procedures, including considering the ability to pay and revising notice forms.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the injunction improperly required CHP to contravene valid statutes, relied on inapplicable case law, conflicted with the existing statutory scheme, and mandated unnecessary revisions to its notice procedures. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in requiring CHP to conduct ability-to-pay hearings and revise its notice forms, as these requirements were not mandated by due process and conflicted with statutory provisions. The judgment was reversed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the appellant. View "Mann v. State of Cal." on Justia Law

Donald McCurdy appealed an order denying his petition for relief from the notice requirement of the Government Claims Act. McCurdy had submitted a claim for damages to the County of Riverside over a year after the Court of Appeal granted his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which found that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from a public defender during a probation revocation hearing. The County denied his claim, stating it was not presented within six months of accrual as required by section 911.2. McCurdy applied for leave to file a late claim, which the County also denied. He then filed a petition for relief from the notice requirement in the trial court, arguing his claim did not accrue until the remittitur issued on the writ of habeas corpus and that he had one year to present his claim. Alternatively, he argued that he was misadvised by three attorneys about the claim period.The Superior Court of Riverside denied McCurdy's petition, finding that his claim accrued when his probation was revoked and was therefore untimely under either the six-month or one-year period. The court also found that McCurdy failed to show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court concluded that McCurdy's claim arose in tort and fell under the six-month claims period in section 911.2. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that McCurdy did not show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Consequently, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order. View "McCurdy v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law