Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Housing Authority of the City of Calexico (the Housing Authority) and AMG & Associates, LLC (collectively, the plaintiffs) appealed a superior court confirming an arbitration award, declining to undertake a review of the award on the merits for errors of fact or law (review on the merits) and declining to grant their petition to partially reverse or vacate the award. They contended the superior court should have undertaken a review on the merits because the parties had agreed to such a review. They further contended that, had the superior court undertaken such a review, it would have concluded that no substantial evidence supported the award and that the award was contrary to law. Additionally, plaintiffs contended that, in denying their motion to partially reverse or vacate the award, the superior court left in place a finding by the arbitrator that not only exceeded the arbitrator’s powers but worked as a forfeiture against the Housing Authority. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the superior court erred in declining to undertake a review on the merits. "[I]n instances in which the parties have agreed that an arbitration award may be subjected to judicial review, it is the superior court and not the Court of Appeal that has original jurisdiction to undertake that review in the first instance, that the superior court is without power to yield that original jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal, and that the superior court should thus have performed the review." View "Housing Auth City of Calexico v. Multi-Housing Tax Credit Partners" on Justia Law

The Penal Code authorizes but does not require, county sheriffs to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office rarely issued CCW licenses; the office would not even process a CCW application absent a special instruction Sung, who apparently ran Sheriff Smith’s 2018 re-election campaign and subsequently became the undersheriff, could issue such instructions and could place applications on hold even after licenses were signed by the sheriff. Sung abused that authority to extract favors.Apple executives, concerned about serious threats, met with Sung, who asked whether they would support Sheriff Smith’s re-election. Apple would not give anything of value in exchange for CCW licenses but two executives personally donated $1,000, the maximum allowable amount, to Smith’s campaign. After the election, the applicants were fingerprinted and completed their firearm range qualification tests. Sheriff Smith signed the CCW licenses but they were not handed over. Although Apple had no program for donating products to law enforcement agencies, after a meeting with Sung, an Apple executive (Moyer) emailed an inquiry about donating iPads or computers to the sheriff’s office's “new training facility,” not mentioning Apple’s pending CCW applications. The Office was not setting up a new training center but asked for 200 iPads, worth $50,0000-$80,000. Apple’s team then received their CCW licenses, Apple terminated the promised donation.The court of appeal reversed the dismissal of a bribery charge against Moyer. A public official may be bribed with a promise to donate to the official’s office. View "People v. Moyer" on Justia Law

This original proceeding involves a protracted legal battle between several rural telephone companies and the Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”). Petitioners are telephone corporations that provide telephone service in rural areas. After the Rural Telephone Bank (“RTB”) had just dissolved and redeemed all shares of stock it had issued. Many telephone companies, including Petitioners, owned RTB stock. The Commission had clarified in a 2006 decision that all gains on the sale of public utility company assets that were never in rate base accrue to company shareholders. Relying on this decision, the companies that never had stock in rate base so stated in the application and did not disclose any of their redemption proceeds. The Commission penalized the companies in the amount of $2,752,000 for violating Rule 1.1. The companies challenged the decision in an administrative appeal, but the Commission denied rehearing.   The Fifth Appellate District annulled penalty decision and the decision denying rehearing. The court agreed that Petitioners lacked fair notice of their obligation to disclose their redemption proceeds in the 2007 application. The court explained that Petitioners’ redemption proceed amounts were irrelevant to a ratemaking determination because Petitioners’ shares were never in rate base. All gains or losses on the redemption accrued to Petitioners’ shareholders, not the ratepayers. No other allocation was legally allowed. The Commission should have instructed Petitioners to disclose their redemption proceeds in the Application if that is what the Commission wanted from Petitioners. But the Commission did not give fair notice to Petitioners of this disclosure requirement and penalized them for essentially failing to intuit the disclosure requirement. View "Kerman Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

A.R. (Father) appealed the juvenile court’s dispositional order adjudging his son a dependent of the court and removing the child from his custody. The court also ordered reunification services for Father. Father’s one-year-old son, Andres R., came to DPSS’s attention in May 2022, when D.P. (Mother) called law enforcement to report domestic violence. Months later, the child was deemed a dependent of the court based on a social worker's findings of the child's living environment and interviews with his siblings and his mother. On appeal, Father challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s jurisdictional finding and the removal order. He also argued that the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to comply with state law implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) . Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "In re Andres R." on Justia Law

Appellant M.F. and her husband, J.F., were the paternal grandparents (PGPs) of R.F. and B.F. In 2021, the juvenile court terminated parental rights to the children and selected adoption as the children’s permanent plans. In Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.26 reports for each child, respondent Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) recommended that the court designate the PGPs as the children’s “prospective adoptive parents” (PAPs). But at a hearing for B.F., counsel raised a concern about J.F.’s alcohol abuse; J.F. later tested positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines. In March 2022, DPSS removed the children from the PGPs’ home on an emergency basis. DPSS then filed a Judicial Council form JV-324 for each child, stating that the removals were “due to methamphetamine used by [J.F].” Together with the notice forms (JV-324), DPSS filed a form JV-326 for each child, stating that M.F. was given notice of the removals “orally, in person” on March 11. The proofs of notice (forms JV-326) did not show that M.F. was given: (1) copies of the notices of emergency removal DPSS filed on March 11; (2) blank copies of forms JV-325 (objection to removal); or (3) blank copies of forms JV- 321 (request for prospective adoptive parent designation). M.F. went to the courthouse to ask whether she could “do anything,” and she was told she could file an objection to removal on form JV-325. On March 25, M.F. filed a form JV-325 for each child, requesting a hearing on the removals, and claiming the children would suffer harm the longer they were separated from M.F.’s family. The juvenile court never set a hearing on the removals. On September 1, 2022, M.F., through an attorney, filed a section 388 petition for each child, asking the court to return the children to her care and claiming she was never notified of her right to file objections to, and request a hearing on, the removals.The court denied the petitions, without a hearing, on grounds: (1) M.F. was provided with notice of the removals on March 11; (2) thus, M.F.’s objections were untimely filed; and (3) a hearing on the removals was discretionary, not mandatory, pursuant to section 366.26(n)(3). M.F. appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with orders to the juvenile court to hold a noticed hearing on the children’s March 11, 2022 removals. View "In re R.F." on Justia Law

Three former deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (department) were discharged from their employment for alleged misconduct. The former deputies filed administrative appeals with the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (commission). While their appeals were pending, the former deputies executed settlement agreements with department personnel that purported to reinstate the former deputies to employment. The County of Los Angeles (county) thereafter refused to comply with these settlement agreements. The former deputies and a labor union for department personnel (collectively, Appellants) filed suit against the county, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (board of supervisors or board), the department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff (sheriff), the Los Angeles County Counsel (county counsel), and the Director of Personnel for the County of Los Angeles (director of personnel) (collectively, Respondents). Appellants sought enforcement of the settlements through mandamus, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel claims. The trial court sustained Respondents’ demurrers to Appellants’ pleading without leave to amend.   The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s judgments of dismissal. The court conclude that with the exception of the portion of Appellants’ declaratory relief cause of action that is premised on an alleged procedural due process violation, the trial court erred in denying Appellants leave to amend. Given that the trial court was reviewing Appellants’ first pleading and that Appellants could potentially discover the legal basis (if any) for the department’s alleged long-standing apparent belief that its personnel have the authority to settle commission appeals on their own. The court concluded that allowing appellants to file an amended pleading would not be an exercise in futility. View "Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

Appellant Tanner Altizer suffered serious injuries when he ran into a suspended cable fence while riding his off-road motorcycle on an unpaved area in an unoccupied area of the desert. The owner of the property, respondent Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (the Commission), placed the cable fence around its property to stop illegal dumping and off-road vehicles in order to protect the sensitive habitat. Altizer sued the Commission, alleging that the cable fence created a dangerous condition on public property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Commission, and Altizer appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the Commission was entitled to hazardous recreational activity immunity under Government Code section 831.71 and affirmed. View "Altizer v. Coachella Valley Conservation Com." on Justia Law

The County of San Luis Obispo granted a permit to move an easement on a property in the coastal zone. However, the California Coastal Commission denied the permit. The trial court found in the Commission's favor.The County appealed under the California Coastal Act of 1976( Coastal Act). The CoastalAct establishes a “coastal zone,” defined by an official map and generally extending from the mean high tide line landward 1000 yards. Every city or county with jurisdiction over lands within the coastal zone is required to create a “local coastal program” to implement the provisions and policies of the Coastal Act.The Commission has de novo review authority over the County’s grant of the permit. Here, because the Commission denied the McCarthys’ permit on appeal, the development was not authorized pursuant to the Coastal Act. Thus the Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court's order. View "Cave Landing, LLC v. Cal. Coastal Com." on Justia Law

Petitioner applied to the trial court in March 2022 to change his name. On the ground that Petitioner has “outstanding warrant(s),” the trial court denied Harris’s petition.   The Second Appellate District affirmed because there was no abuse of discretion. The court explained that by statute, it was proper for the trial court to check law enforcement records when considering Petitioner’s petition to change his name. The California Legislature has directed courts to use the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) and Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) to determine whether a name change applicant must register as a sex offender. View "In re Harris" on Justia Law

The County of Santa Barbara (County) appealed from the entry of a preliminary injunction prohibiting its Road Commissioner from removing unpermitted encroachments placed in the public right of way along a portion of East Mountain Drive in Montecito. The County filed a cross-complaint alleging causes of action for public nuisance and trespass against respondents. The trial court issued a preemptory writ that suspends all efforts by County to enforce the right-of-way encroachments.   The Second Appellate District concluded that the trial court erred because Respondents are not correct on the merits of their CEQA claim and will not be irreparably harmed by the removal of encroachments installed without permits in the public right of way of an existing road. The County Road Commissioner is authorized by statute and local ordinance to remove any encroachment on a public right of way. The court explained that Respondents will suffer no irreparable harm because a party suffers no grave or irreparable harm by being prohibited from violating the law. View "Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law