Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

George Loy Clarke challenged the California Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) decision to suspend his driver’s license following his arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). Clarke argued that the DMV's administrative hearing violated due process and that his refusal to submit to a breath or blood test should be excused. The DMV had conducted an administrative per se (APS) hearing, which led to the suspension of Clarke’s license.The Superior Court of Orange County initially denied Clarke’s petition for a writ of mandate, which sought to overturn the DMV’s decision. Clarke’s first APS hearing resulted in a suspension, but the trial court later granted his petition for a writ of mandate, remanding the case for a new hearing. At the second hearing, Clarke contested the allegations of refusal to submit to a chemical test. Despite his objections, the hearing officer (HO) admitted the DMV’s evidence and ultimately reimposed the suspension.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the DMV’s practice of having a single employee act as both advocate and adjudicator during the APS hearing violated due process, as established in California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles and Knudsen v. Department of Motor Vehicles. The court concluded that the HO in Clarke’s case failed to separate her roles adequately, resulting in a due process violation. This constituted structural error, necessitating a reversal of the trial court’s denial of Clarke’s petition.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case, directing the lower court to grant Clarke’s petition for a writ of mandate. The court also denied requests for judicial notice and to augment the record, leaving those issues to be addressed in a potential new APS hearing. View "Clarke v. Gordon" on Justia Law

In 2022, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance extending the notice period for landlords pursuing at-fault evictions. The San Francisco Apartment Association and Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute sought a writ of mandate to prevent the City and County of San Francisco from enforcing the ordinance, arguing it was preempted by state law. The trial court partially granted the petition, finding the ordinance preempted only for nonpayment of rent evictions. Both parties appealed.The San Francisco Superior Court initially ruled that the ordinance conflicted with state law only regarding nonpayment of rent, citing a split in authority on notice periods for other fault-based evictions. The court referenced Tri County Apartment Association v. City of Mountain View, which invalidated extended notice periods, and Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland, which allowed them. The trial court felt bound by Rental Housing and limited its ruling to nonpayment of rent.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the entire ordinance was preempted by state law. The court found that the ordinance was procedural, not substantive, as it extended the state-mandated three-day notice period to a minimum of 13 days, conflicting with the Unlawful Detainer Act's timelines. The court determined that state law fully occupies the field of landlord-tenant notification timelines, making the local ordinance invalid.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment in part, ruling that the entire ordinance was preempted by state law, and directed the superior court to issue a writ of mandate preventing the City and County of San Francisco from enforcing the ordinance. The plaintiffs were awarded their costs on appeal. View "S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law

Reabold California LLC applied to convert a former oil well into a Class II injection well in the Brentwood Oil Field, Contra Costa County. The well, drilled in 1963, had been inactive for over 20 years. The conversion involved minor alterations, such as removing the well plug and installing injection equipment. The project aimed to inject produced water back into the aquifer, eliminating the need for water disposal trips. The Environmental Protection Agency had exempted the aquifer from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1982, making it eligible for such injection projects.The California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) approved the project, invoking a Class 1 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for minor alterations involving negligible or no expansion of use. Sunflower Alliance challenged this exemption, arguing that converting the well to an injection well constituted a significant change in use. The Contra Costa County Superior Court agreed with Sunflower, ruling that the change in use was not negligible and directing CalGEM to set aside its approval and notice of exemption.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the conversion project fell within the Class 1 exemption because the environmental risks associated with injecting water were negligible. The court emphasized that the project involved only minor physical alterations and that the injected water would be confined within the aquifer, posing no significant environmental harm. The court directed the lower court to deny Sunflower’s petition and ordered CalGEM to reinstate its project approval and notice of exemption. View "Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation" on Justia Law

Sutter’s Place, Inc., which operates Bay 101 Casino, challenged the City of San Jose's annual cardroom regulation fee, arguing it was an unconstitutional tax imposed without voter approval and violated due process. The fee was equally divided between Bay 101 and Casino M8trix, the only two cardrooms in the city. The plaintiff contended that the fee included costs outside the constitutional exception for regulatory charges and that the equal allocation was unfair.The Santa Clara County Superior Court held a bench trial and found the fee valid, covering reasonable regulatory costs and fairly allocated between the cardrooms. The court determined the fee was for regulatory functions, the amount was necessary to cover costs, and the equal allocation was reasonable given the equal number of tables and benefits to both cardrooms. The court also excluded certain expert testimony from the plaintiff and denied a separate due process trial.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It upheld the trial court's finding that the equal allocation of the fee was reasonable but reversed the judgment on other grounds. The appellate court found the trial court erred by not specifically determining whether all costs included in the fee fell within the constitutional exception for regulatory charges. The case was remanded for the trial court to identify and exclude any non-permissible costs from the fee and to conduct further proceedings on the due process claim if necessary. The appellate court also reversed the award of costs to the city and directed the trial court to reassess costs after applying the correct legal standards. View "Sutter's Place, Inc. v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

A group called Riversiders Against Increased Taxes (RAIT) filed a petition to stop the City of Riverside from placing Measure C on the November 2, 2021, ballot. RAIT argued that Measure C, which involved transferring excess fees from the city-operated electric utility to the general fund, violated Proposition 218 because it was a general tax that should not be voted on in a special election. The City contended that the election was a general election as it was a regularly scheduled event, despite being labeled a "special municipal election" in city documents. The trial court granted RAIT's request for declaratory relief, finding the election was special, but did not cancel the election or enjoin certification of the results. Both parties appealed.The City argued on appeal that the trial court wrongly declared the election as special and that RAIT should not be considered the prevailing party. RAIT cross-appealed, claiming the trial court should have removed Measure C from the ballot and enjoined the certification of the election results. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's declaratory judgment, holding that the November 2021 election was a general election under state law, despite the city's charter labeling it as special. The court found that the election was regularly scheduled and consolidated with a general election, thus complying with Proposition 218. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the rest of RAIT's petition, noting that RAIT had multiple opportunities to object to continuances but failed to do so, making their appeal moot. The City was deemed the prevailing party and entitled to costs on appeal. View "Riversiders Against Increased Taxes v. City of Riverside" on Justia Law

The Attorney General of California drafted language for the ballot title, summary, and label for Proposition 5, a proposed amendment to the California Constitution that would allow certain local bonds to be approved by 55 percent of voters instead of the current two-thirds requirement. Jon Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association challenged the ballot label, arguing it was misleading because it did not mention the existing two-thirds approval requirement. They claimed this omission failed to inform voters of the measure's true purpose.The Superior Court of Sacramento County agreed with the challengers, finding that the ballot label did not adequately inform voters of the measure's chief purpose. The court ordered the Attorney General to revise the ballot label to include the current two-thirds approval requirement. The Attorney General then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, challenging the Superior Court's decision.The Court of Appeal concluded that the ballot label drafted by the Attorney General accurately and concisely described Proposition 5 and was not misleading. The court emphasized that the Attorney General is afforded considerable discretion in drafting ballot materials and that the label's language was factually accurate. The court found that the Superior Court failed to accord the proper discretion to the Attorney General and that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the ballot label was misleading. Consequently, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to deny the challengers' petition and allow the Attorney General's original ballot label to be used. View "Bonta v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

John Doe, a recipient of vocational rehabilitation services from the California Department of Rehabilitation, sought to have his rent covered while attending a law school outside commuting distance from his home. The Department agreed to cover his tuition and other expenses but refused to pay his rent, classifying it as a non-covered "long-term everyday living expense." Doe argued that rent should be considered "maintenance" under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and related California law, which the Department disputed.An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the Department's decision, interpreting the law to allow rent as "maintenance" only for short-term shelter, not for the three-year duration Doe required. The Superior Court of Orange County denied Doe's petition for a writ of mandate, agreeing with the ALJ that three years of rent did not qualify as "short-term shelter."The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the term "maintenance" under the Rehabilitation Act and California law includes costs incurred in excess of normal expenses while receiving vocational rehabilitation services, without distinguishing between short-term and long-term costs. The court held that the Department's categorical refusal to cover long-term rent as "maintenance" was incorrect. The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case, directing the Department to reconsider Doe's request for rental assistance based on his individual circumstances, rather than a blanket policy against long-term expenses. View "Doe v. Dept. of Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

Jose Oliveras, serving a life sentence without parole, was found with over 600 pornographic images on a tablet provided by the prison. The images were stored on a removable SIM card. Oliveras pled guilty to an administrative violation for possession of contraband and received counseling without reprimand. However, at a subsequent classification review, his computer clearance was rescinded, citing regulations that prohibit inmates with a history of computer fraud or abuse from accessing computers.Oliveras filed a grievance with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), arguing that his violation did not constitute "computer fraud or abuse" as defined by Penal Code section 502. The CDCR denied his grievance and appeal. Oliveras then petitioned the Del Norte County Superior Court, which denied his petition, stating that the hearing officer's decision was supported by "some evidence."The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that Oliveras's conduct did not meet the criteria for "computer fraud or abuse" under Penal Code section 502. The court noted that Oliveras had permission to access the tablet and there was no evidence he used computer services without permission or for fraudulent purposes. The court concluded that the CDCR's interpretation of Oliveras's conduct as "computer fraud or abuse" was incorrect.The Court of Appeal ordered the CDCR to vacate any reference to a section 502 violation from Oliveras's record and reversed the October 2022 revocation of his computer clearance. The court directed the CDCR to remove any reference to this revocation from Oliveras's file. View "In re Oliveras" on Justia Law

James Morell, a retired research attorney for the Orange County Superior Court, was entitled to a pension under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL). The dispute arose over whether the $3,500 Optional Benefit Program (OBP) payments he received should be included in the calculation of his pension. The OBP allowed attorneys to allocate the $3,500 benefit to various options, including taxable cash or a healthcare reimbursement account. Morell allocated portions of the OBP to both cash and healthcare reimbursement in the years leading up to his retirement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially ruled in favor of Morell, ordering the Board of Retirement for the Orange County Employees’ Retirement System (OCERS) to reconsider its decision excluding the OBP payments from Morell’s pension calculation. The court found that the board had improperly relied on a settlement agreement and a repealed statute, Government Code section 31460.1, which had excluded such payments from the definition of "compensation."The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Resolution 90-1551, adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, which excluded OBP payments from the definition of "compensation," remained valid despite the repeal of section 31460.1. The court found that Morell had elected to participate in the OBP by allocating the $3,500 benefit, and these payments reflected amounts that exceeded his salary. Therefore, the exclusion of the OBP payments from the pension calculation was proper.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with directions to deny Morell’s petition. The court held that Resolution 90-1551 was still valid and that the OBP payments were correctly excluded from Morell’s pension calculation. View "Morell v. Board of Retirement for the Orange County Employees’ Retirement System" on Justia Law

In September 2021, the San Diego Unified School District (District) proposed a "Vaccination Roadmap" requiring students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to attend in-person classes and participate in extracurricular activities. Plaintiffs, including an organization and an individual parent, challenged the District's authority to impose this requirement, arguing that such decisions must be made at the state level. The trial court agreed, ruling that the Roadmap was preempted by state law, and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs.The District appealed, and the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the local vaccination requirement conflicted with state law and that the state had fully occupied the field of school vaccination mandates. Following this decision, the plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees under California's private attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The trial court denied the motions, reasoning that the litigation did not enforce an important right affecting the public and that the District's actions were commendable and did not adversely affect the public interest.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reversed the trial court's denial of attorney’s fees. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs' lawsuit enforced an important public right by ensuring that the District complied with state law regarding school vaccination requirements. The court emphasized that the litigation conferred a significant benefit on the general public by upholding the state's comprehensive immunization policy. The court also rejected the trial court's rationale that the District's good intentions precluded an award of attorney’s fees, clarifying that the focus should be on the enforcement of public rights, not the subjective merits of the District's actions. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of attorney’s fees. View "Let Them Choose v. San Diego Unified School District" on Justia Law