Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District considered whether the planning and implementation of amendments to long-term contracts with local government agencies that receive water through the State Water Project violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act (Delta Reform Act), and the public trust doctrine. The Department of Water Resources (the department) had determined that these amendments, which extended the contract terms to 2085 and made financial changes to the contracts, would not have an environmental impact. The department then filed an action to validate the amendments. Several conservation groups and public agencies contested this action, bringing separate actions challenging the amendments. After a coordinated proceeding, the trial court ruled in favor of the department. The appellants appealed this decision, but the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling. The court found that the department had followed the correct procedures under CEQA, that the amendments did not violate the Delta Reform Act or the public trust doctrine, and that it was not necessary to recirculate the Environmental Impact Report for further public comment. The court also rejected the appellants' arguments that the department had improperly segmented its environmental analysis and that its project description was inaccurate or unstable. Finally, the court held that the amendments were not a "covered action" under the Delta Reform Act requiring a consistency certification with the Delta Plan. View "Planning and Conservation League v. Dept. of Water Resources" on Justia Law

In the case before the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two, the plaintiff, Ali Shalghoun, appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in favor of the defendant, North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc. Shalghoun, an administrator of a residential facility for developmentally disabled persons, sued the regional center after he was attacked by a resident at the facility. The resident, known as J.C., was a client of the regional center, which had arranged for his placement at the facility.The central issue in the case was whether the regional center had a legal duty to protect the employees of a residential facility from a developmentally disabled person who had been placed there. The plaintiff argued that the regional center was negligent in failing to immediately move J.C. to another facility after being informed that the facility could no longer provide the level of care he required.However, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the regional center did not owe a duty of care to the facility's employees. The court reasoned that the regional center's duty, as mandated by the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, was to provide services and support to the developmentally disabled person (the "consumer"), not to protect third-party employees at a residential facility. The court also noted that the regional center did not have the unilateral power to relocate a consumer; it depended on the acceptance of the consumer by another residential facility.According to the court, the imposition of liability on regional centers for injuries inflicted by consumers could potentially drive the centers out of business, disrupt the entire system of services and support for developmentally disabled individuals, and contradict the Act's mandate to place consumers in the least restrictive environment. The court therefore concluded that public policy factors weighed against recognizing a duty of care running from the regional center to the employees of the residential facility. View "Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc." on Justia Law

In a case involving the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and others (appellants) against the City of Los Angeles and others (respondents), the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed and remanded a lower court's decision for further proceedings. The case revolved around the preparation of a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the continued operation of the China Shipping Container Terminal located in the Port of Los Angeles. The appellants alleged that the SEIR violated CEQA in multiple ways, including the failure to ensure that mitigation measures were enforceable and the failure to adequately analyze the emissions impacts of the project. The trial court agreed with some of the appellants' claims and ordered the Port to set aside the certification of the 2019 SEIR and prepare a revised SEIR that complies with CEQA. However, the court did not impose further remedies, such as the cessation of Port activities or the required implementation of certain mitigation measures. The court's decision was appealed by the appellants, who argued that the trial court erred in its determination of the remedy and that certain other mitigation measures in the SEIR were not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court agreed with some of these claims and reversed the trial court's decision. It remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, including the consideration of its authority to fashion an appropriate remedy in light of the CEQA violations. View "Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, ruled in favor of the Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association (VCERA) in a dispute over the calculation of retirement benefits for county employees. VCERA had adopted a resolution excluding compensation for accrued but unused annual leave hours exceeding a calendar year allowance from the calculation of retirement benefits, following a Supreme Court decision in a similar case (Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Assn.). VCERA sought a judicial declaration that its resolution was legal, which was granted by the trial court. The Criminal Justice Attorneys Association of Ventura and Ventura County Professional Peace Officers’ Association appealed this decision, arguing that the resolution was not mandated by the Supreme Court decision or the relevant statutes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that VCERA was required to comply with the Supreme Court decision and the relevant statutes, which were designed to prevent pension spiking by excluding income designed to artificially inflate a pension benefit. View "Ventura County Employees' Retirement Association v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Association of Ventura County" on Justia Law

In this case, the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District reviewed a decision by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to adopt a new net energy metering (NEM) tariff. The PUC was required by the Legislature to create a successor tariff to the existing NEM scheme, which utilities argued overcompensated owners of renewable energy systems for their exported energy, raising electricity costs for customers without such systems.The petitioners, Center for Biological Diversity, Inc., Environmental Working Group, and The Protect our Communities Foundation, contended that the successor tariff did not comply with various requirements of section 2827.1 of the Public Utilities Code. The petitioners argued that the tariff failed to consider the social benefits of customer-generated power, improperly favored the interests of utility customers who did not own renewable systems, failed to promote sustainable growth of renewable energy, and neglected alternatives to promote the growth of renewable systems among customers in disadvantaged communities.The court affirmed the PUC's decision. It held that the PUC had appropriately balanced the various objectives set out by the Legislature in section 2827.1. The court found that the successor tariff was designed to reduce the financial advantage previously given to owners of renewable energy systems under the NEM tariff, which the court said was consistent with the Legislature's aim of balancing costs and benefits to all customers. The court also noted that the PUC had adopted programs to make renewable energy systems more accessible to low-income customers, satisfying the requirement to ensure growth among residential customers in disadvantaged communities.Lastly, the court concluded that the PUC's decision to apply the same tariff to both residential and nonresidential customers was justified, as the nonresidential NEM 2.0 tariff, while cost-effective for the electrical system as a whole, did not balance costs and benefits among all customers. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law

In the juvenile dependency case involving P.H., Jr., the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Five affirmed the jurisdiction and disposition orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. This case revolved around the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and whether the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) and the juvenile court were obligated to formally notify certain tribes of the proceedings.The minor, P.H., Jr., lived with his parents, P.H. (Father) and A.R. (Mother), when the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging that the minor was at substantial risk due to physical abuse by the mother, the father's failure to protect the minor, and unsanitary living conditions. The parents filed ICWA-020 Parental Notification of Indian Status forms indicating possible affiliation with federally recognized Indian tribes.The appellate court held that no formal ICWA notice was required in this case because none of the statements by the minor’s parents or other family members provided a reason to know he was an Indian child for purposes of the relevant statutes. The ICWA and related California law define an "Indian child" as a child who is either a member of an Indian tribe or is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. The court found that at most, the statements by the parents and other family members suggested that the minor might have some Indian ancestry, but tribal ancestry alone is not sufficient to trigger the formal notice requirement. The court affirmed the lower court's jurisdiction and disposition orders. View "In re P.H." on Justia Law

In an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, five minors, aged between one and fourteen years, challenged the juvenile court's decision to order reunification services for their parents, identified as A.B. (mother) and A.S. (father). The minors were adjudged dependent children due to ongoing domestic violence and substance abuse in their home. The court had to interpret and apply the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), which allows a court to bypass reunification services for parents with a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol who have resisted prior court-ordered treatment in the three years prior to the filing of the petition.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District concluded that the juvenile court had misapplied the law when it decided it could not deny reunification services to the parents while they were participating in treatment. The court emphasized that the statute requires proof of the parent’s resistance during the three years preceding the petition, regardless of their engagement in treatment at the time of the disposition hearing.The court reversed the juvenile court's dispositional order providing reunification services to the parents for all five children and remanded the case for a new disposition hearing based on the family's present circumstances. This decision was made despite subsequent events that rendered the case potentially moot, as the court deemed the issue of statutory interpretation important. View "In re L.B." on Justia Law

In this case, the California School Employees Association (CSEA) filed a complaint with the Public Employment Relations Board (Board or PERB) alleging that the Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) violated Government Code section 3543.5, subdivision (a), by terminating an employee in retaliation for her union activities. The employee was a secretary and local union chapter president. The Board found in favor of the employee, concluding that her status as a union officer was protected activity under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), and that VUSD had retaliated against her for her union activity. VUSD appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, held that holding a union office is protected activity under the EERA. The court also concluded that the Board correctly found an inference that VUSD had retaliated against the employee for her union activity. However, the court disagreed with the Board's conclusion that VUSD failed to prove its affirmative defense, that it would have terminated the employee for poor performance regardless of any protected activity. The court found that the record compelled a finding that VUSD would have justifiably terminated the employee notwithstanding her protected union activity. Therefore, the court granted VUSD's petition and set aside the Board's decision. View "Visalia Unified School Dist. v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of August 1, 2018, Gwendolyn Adams and Glenn Tyler Bolden were pursued in a high-speed chase by Michael William Becker, a peace officer employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Becker suspected Adams and Bolden of wrongdoing, although his suspicions were unfounded. The pursuit resulted in a catastrophic accident that caused severe injuries and, ultimately, the death of Adams's son, D'son Woods.Adams and Bolden filed a lawsuit against the CDCR, alleging negligence causing wrongful death, assault and battery, and violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. The CDCR sought summary judgment, arguing that Becker was not acting within the scope of his employment during the pursuit. The trial court agreed and entered judgment in favor of CDCR.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three reversed and remanded the case. The appellate court found that whether Becker was acting within the scope of his employment when he pursued Adams and Bolden was a question of fact that should be decided by a jury. The court noted that Becker’s actions may have been influenced by his role as a peace officer, and it was not clear whether he was acting as a private citizen or a law enforcement officer during the pursuit. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the CDCR. View "Adams v. Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

In this case, Maria Ruiz Perez and minor children of the deceased, Hector Evangelista and Giselle Evangelista, filed a lawsuit against the Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) after a tragic accident resulted in the deaths of Hector and Giselle. The accident occurred when their vehicle overturned and landed in a drain, leading to their drowning. The plaintiffs contended that the water level in the drain, which was a public property managed by the OID, was a dangerous condition that led to the fatalities. However, the Superior Court of Stanislaus County granted summary judgment in favor of OID, citing "canal immunity" under Government Code, § 831.8, subd. (b), which immunizes the state or an irrigation district from liability for injuries caused by the condition of canals, conduits, or drains if the injured party was using the property for a purpose other than its intended use.The plaintiffs appealed this decision, arguing that canal immunity should apply only when the injured party intentionally used the public property in a manner not intended by the government. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District rejected this interpretation. Instead, the appellate court held that canal immunity applies when the injured person interacts with the canal, conduit, or drain in a manner not intended by the government, regardless of whether that interaction was intentional or involuntary. The court based this interpretation on the legislative intent behind the statute, which was to define the scope of immunity in terms of how foreseeable the injury was to the government, rather than the degree of responsibility assumed by the injured party. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of OID. View "Perez v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist." on Justia Law