Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Thai was an IBM employee. To accomplish his duties, he required, among other things, internet access, telephone service, a telephone headset, and a computer and accessories. On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom signed the COVID-19 “stay home” order. IBM directed Thai and thousands of his coworkers to continue performing their regular job duties from home. Thai and his coworkers personally paid for the services and equipment necessary to do their jobs while working from home. IBM never reimbursed its employees for these expenses.The court of appeal reversed the dismissal of a complaint under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Labor Code 2699). Section 2802(a)) requires an employer to reimburse an employee “for all necessary expenditures . . . incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” The trial court’s conclusion that the Governor’s order was an intervening cause of the work-from-home expenses that absolved IBM of liability under section 2802 is inconsistent with the statutory language. The work-from-home expenses were inherent to IBM’s business and the work performed was for the benefit of IBM. View "Thai v. International Business Machines Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Olen Properties Corp. owned commercial property in the City of Newport Beach (the City) within an area known as the Koll Center. The Koll Center was a mixed-use development area, near the John Wayne Airport, San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve, and the University of California, Irvine. It was located within the “Airport Area,” a portion of the City adjacent to John Wayne Airport, governed by the City’s Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. In 2020 and 2021, the City considered and approved the request of Real Party in Interest TPG (KCN) Acquisition, LLC (TPG) to develop a five-story, 312-unit residential housing project (the Project) on an existing surface parking lot serving the Koll Center’s existing commercial tenants. In an effort to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City obtained an addendum (the Addendum) to an existing environmental impact report prepared in 2006 (the 2006 EIR) as part of its general plan update. The Addendum considered a wide range of possible environmental impacts but concluded the Project’s impacts “would either be the same or not substantially greater than those described by the [2006 EIR].” Plaintiff opposed approval of the Project before the City. Among other things, plaintiff argued the City could not rely upon an addendum to the 2006 EIR and was legally required to obtain a subsequent EIR. After the City’s approval of the Project, plaintiff filed suit, seeking a writ of mandate compelling the City to void its approval for violation of CEQA, and for injunctive relief, barring construction at the site. The trial court explained its denial in an extensive written ruling, addressing and rejecting each of plaintiff's arguments. The Court of Appeal concurred with the trial court's judgment and affirmed. View "Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach" on Justia Law

The trial court granted a motion by the Labor Commissioner to amend a judgment to add Plaintiff as an alter ego judgment debtor. Plaintiff appealed. He contends there was “virtually no evidence” he commingled his assets or operations with those of the judgment debtor; the original judgment was not renewed during the 10-year limitation period; the doctrine of laches bars the alter ego motion; and the denial of an earlier alter ego motion barred the current motion under res judicata principles.   The Second Appellate District affirmed finding no error in the court’s decision to add Plaintiff as an alter ego judgment debtor. The court reasoned that as the trial court observed, “no single factor is determinative, and instead, a Court must examine all the circumstances to determine whether to apply the [alter ego] doctrine.” The court cited Plaintiff’s complete control over Cahuenga, his control of the litigation, his sharing of attorneys, his transfer of the company, and his destruction of relevant records of assets. Further, the court explained that Plaintiff contended in the trial court that the motion to amend the judgment was barred by the doctrine of laches. The trial court implicitly concluded Plaintiff did not carry his burden of proof on that point when it granted the Commissioner’s motion. The evidence does not compel a finding in Plaintiff’s favor as a matter of law. View "Hacker v. Fabe" on Justia Law

In 2006 and 2013, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (the Corridor Agency) approved extensions of California State Route 241, and the Environmental Parties along with other environmental organizations and the California Attorney General filed lawsuits challenging those approvals. In 2016, after years of litigation, the Corridor Agency entered a settlement agreement to resolve the litigation. The Corridor Agency continued its planning efforts and identified several alternatives for the transportation project. While these efforts were in progress, the Reserve Maintenance Corporation (the Reserve), a homeowner’s association, filed a lawsuit seeking to protect the interest of their homeowners in avoiding an extension of State Route 241 near their community. In 2020, after three years of litigation, during which the Reserve lost a petition for a restraining order and motions for summary adjudication and faced the prospect of dispositive motions from the other side, they agreed to dismiss their lawsuit. However, they moved for attorney fees and costs on the ground they were successful parties in the litigation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. In March 2020, the Corridor Agency chose to proceed with a road construction alternative that steered clear of both an "Avoidance Area" and the Reserve Community, and the Reserve argued their litigation caused the agency to make that choice, meaning their litigation was successful as a catalyst of change. The Environmental Parties also moved for attorney fees on the ground they were successful parties because they gained the dismissal, and both they and the Corridor Agency moved for costs as prevailing parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. The trial judge denied the request for attorney fees under section 1021.5 by both parties. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in concluding the catalyst theory didn’t apply to this case but erred as a matter of law by exempting the Reserve from an award of attorney fees under In re Joshua S., 42 Cal.4th 945 (2008) and Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, 11 Cal.App.5th 154 (2017). The Court also concluded the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in awarding costs under section 1032 or by refusing to apportion costs. View "City of San Clemente v. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Richard Lauckhart and Sharon and Ronald Baumgartner as trustees of the Baumgartner Family Revocable Trust filed suit to prevent defendant El Macero Homeowners Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation (the Association), from acquiring property as common area and subjecting the plaintiffs’ residential subdivision to the requirements of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, including the levy of assessments to maintain the common area. In their second amended complaint, plaintiffs sought to cancel due to fraud a recorded declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) under which the Association acts, enjoin the Association from accepting real property as common area or using assessments to fund its maintenance, and receive a judicial declaration that the declaration of CC&Rs was void and that the subdivision was not subject to the Davis-Stirling Act. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend, finding the cancelation cause of action was time barred and did not plead fraud with particularity, the Association’s acquisition of the land was protected under the business judgment rule and could not be enjoined, and the request for declaratory relief was derivative of the other dismissed causes of action. Finding no reversible error in this judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Lauckhart v. El Macero Homeowners Assn." on Justia Law

The City of San Diego (City) appealed a judgment entered in favor of Save Our Access on its petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s approval of a 2020 ballot measure proposing amendments to the San Diego Municipal Code and a City ordinance to exclude the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan Area from the 30-foot height limit for construction of buildings within the City’s Coastal Zone. The superior court determined the City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the ballot measure because the administrative record did not support the City’s claim that a 2018 program environmental impact report for the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan Update considered the environmental impacts associated with excluding the area from the City’s Coastal Zone height limit. The court also concluded the administrative record supported a fair argument that the ballot measure may have significant environmental impacts that were not previously examined. The court issued a writ of mandate directing the City to set aside its approvals of the ordinance that submitted the ballot measure to the voters and enjoined the City “from taking any steps to further the Project until lawful approval is obtained from the City.” Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Save Our Access v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

The Monte Vista Villas Project, on the site of the former Leona Quarry, has been in development since the early 2000s. The developers planned to close the 128-acre quarry site, reclaim it, and develop the land into a residential neighborhood with over 400 residential units, a community center, a park, pedestrian trails, and other recreational areas. In 2005, the developers entered into an agreement with Oakland to pay certain fees to cover the costs of its project oversight. The agreement provided that the fees set forth in the agreement satisfied “all of the Developer’s obligations for fees due to the City for the Project.” In 2016, Oakland adopted ordinances that imposed new impact fees on development projects, intended to address the effects of development on affordable housing, transportation, and capital improvements, and assessed the new impact fees on the Project, then more than a decade into development, when the developers sought new building permits.The trial court vacated the imposition of the fees and directed Oakland to refrain from assessing any fee not specified in the agreement. The court of appeal reversed, finding that any provision in, or construction of, the parties’ agreement that prevents Oakland from imposing the impact fees on the instant development project constitutes an impermissible infringement of the city’s police power and is therefore invalid. View "Discovery Builders, Inc. v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

In 2018, voters in the City of South Lake Tahoe (City) enacted Measure T, an initiative that prohibited the use of dwellings in residential zones as short-term or vacation rentals. Measure T amended the City’s vacation home rental ordinances to bar the City from issuing any new permits for vacation home rentals in residential zones except for permanent residents’ dwellings, and to declare that all such existing and new permits would expire by the end of 2021. Measure T also imposed more strict occupancy limits on vacation rental homes which were to be effective immediately. Plaintiff South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group brought this action against the City to have Measure T declared unconstitutional. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and denied plaintiff’s motion. On appeal, contended Measure T: (1) unconstitutionally interfered with vested property rights; (2) created an unconstitutional durational residency requirement to qualify for the exception to the ban; (3) exceeded the initiative power in violation of land use authority vested in the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA); and (4) violated rights of privacy and equal protection by restricting occupancy. After review, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court to the extent that it found Measure T’s exception for resident owners did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "South Lake Tahoe Property etc. v. City of South Lake Tahoe" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the juvenile court denying Father's request for an evidentiary hearing on his petition filed under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 388 to reinstate reunification services with Minor, holding that, under the circumstances, it was error to deny Father's request for an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 petition.A few days after Minor's birth, the Alameda County Social Services Agency filed a petition on his behalf under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 300. The juvenile court terminated the reunification services of Father, who had been incarcerated since before Minor was born, and set a Cal. Well. & Inst. Code 366.26 hearing. The day before the hearing, Father filed his section 388 petition, stating that he had not been provided with services despite the court's orders. The court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the juvenile court erred in denying Father's request for an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 petition. View "In re Damari Y." on Justia Law

San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott successfully moved to strike a defamation complaint filed against her by a former political rival, Cory Briggs, under the California anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. Elliott spent the next seven months fruitlessly trying to collect on the unsatisfied judgment. She then filed a verified memorandum of costs claiming $13,789.10 in postjudgment collection costs, including $12,941.20 in attorney’s fees and $847.90 in other costs. The trial court awarded her the claimed costs, as well as $2,294.07 in postjudgment interest. Briggs appealed the cost award. Finding that the trial court properly awarded Elliott all of the costs identified in the memorandum of costs, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Briggs v. Elliott" on Justia Law