Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs’ operated a mobilehome park owned by one of Plaintiff’s clients. The Department of Real Estate filed an accusation alleging Plaintiff violated various provisions of the Real Estate Law. The administrative law judge issued a proposed order revoking Plaintiffs’ licenses which the Department adopted. Plaintiffs’ filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate, contending they did not receive a fair hearing because the administrative law judge considered improper evidence, including expert testimony from several witnesses the Department did not designate as experts. Plaintiffs also contended the administrative law judge erred in ruling they violated statutes in the Business and Professions Code.   The trial court denied the petition and Plaintiffs’ appealed. The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court wrote that Plaintiffs’ contend they did not receive a fair hearing because, while the Department “did not properly identify any expert witnesses” prior to the hearing and represented at the hearing that “no expert opinion testimony would be offered,” the testimony of all three witnesses went far beyond permissible lay witness opinion.” The court explained that Plaintiffs’ cite the wrong legal standard governing their contentions. As the trial court correctly observed, a hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act “need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses,” unless expressly required by the Act. Further, the court held that even if the Department’s decision to revoke Nijjar’s and Miller’s licenses was partially motivated by its belief Plaintiffs had some responsibility for the fire, Plaintiffs would still not be entitled to reversal of the judgment. View "Miller v. Dept. of Real Estate" on Justia Law

Tracy Rural County Fire Protection District (Tracy Rural), joined by the City of Tracy (City), challenged a decision made by the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Joaquin County (San Joaquin LAFCO or the Commission). The decision adopted a governance model for fire services provided by the City and Tracy Rural “requiring that future annexations to the City . . . will detach from [Tracy Rural].” Tracy Rural argued: (1) San Joaquin LAFCO did not have the statutory authority to order detachment of fire protection services from Tracy Rural in future annexations of territory by the City, but rather had to act on specific proposals for annexation or detachment (none of which was presently pending before the Commission); and (2) even if the Commission held the authority to order detachment sua sponte and in futuro, issuance of resolution No. 1402 nevertheless amounted to a prejudicial abuse of discretion because it was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeal concurred with Tracy Rural: San Joaquin LAFCO did not have the statutory authority to issue resolution No. 1402. "Contrary to San Joaquin LAFCO’s position in this appeal, none of the provisions it relies upon authorized resolution No. 1402." The Court reversed the judgment entered in favor of San Joaquin LAFCO and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Commission to vacate resolution No. 1402. View "Tracy Rural County Fire etc. v. Local Agency Formation etc." on Justia Law

After D.G. was injured in a car accident involving a rental car driven by I.M. H.A. rented the car involved in the accident from Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles (ERAC-LA). I.M. was listed as an additional authorized driver in the rental agreement between H.A. and ERAC-LA. At the time of rental, I.M.  presented ERAC-LA with a facially valid driver’s license issued by Kyrgyzstan and a local California address on the rental paperwork. D.G. sued ERAC-LA, I.M., and EAN Holding, LLC (EAN) for negligence. Specifically, D.G. alleged ERAC-LA negligently entrusted I.M. with the rental vehicle, and therefore proximately caused her injuries. ERAC-LA filed a petition for writ of mandate in this court to reverse the trial court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment.   The Second Appellate District issued a writ of mandate directing respondent court to vacate its May 24, 2022 and July 29, 2022 orders denying ERAC-LA’s motion for summary judgment and enter a new order granting the motion. The court held that requiring a rental car agency to investigate whether a prospective renter who presents a facially valid foreign driver’s license is still a resident of that jurisdiction at the time of rental goes beyond the scope of duties prescribed by the Legislature. The court further concluded that D.G. failed to carry her burden to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact exists regarding ERAC-LA’s compliance with section 14608, subdivision (a)(2). View "Enterprise Rent-A-Car of L.A. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The Estate of N.K (the Estate), by and through Plaintiff, appealed from the judgment after the trial court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Defendant, Glendale Adventist Medical Center (GAMC), following a jury trial of the Estate’s claim of neglect under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. The decedent, presented at the acute care hospital operated by GAMC with complaints of weakness and lightheadedness. N.K. underwent an MRI scan and sustained a burn to his abdomen due to GAMC’s failure to screen N.K. for electrically conductive materials prior to the scan.The trial court concluded that substantial evidence failed to support that GAMC had a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship with N.K., and substantial evidence failed to support that GAMC’s conduct in failing to properly screen N.K. was neglect under the Act   The Second Appellate District affirmed holding that the trial court was correct on both grounds.  The court held that the evidence, in this case, does not permit the conclusion that a robust and substantial caretaking or custodial relationship with ongoing responsibilities existed between GAMC and N.K. The court clarified that it does not suggest that such a relationship can never exist when an elder or dependent adult is an inpatient for only two days. Rather, here, substantial evidence does not support the relationship. Moreover, there is no substantial evidence that GAMC harmed N.K. by “failing to provide medical care” or by failing to “attend to his basic needs and comforts.” View "Kruthanooch v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center" on Justia Law

For almost 60 years, Schnitzer has operated a scrap-metal shredding and recycling facility. The Department of Toxic Substances Control acquired regulatory authority over metal-shredding facilities in the 1980s and issued Schnitzer certification under Code of Regulations, title 22, section 66260.200 2 (an (f) letter)--a conditional nonhazardous waste classification, allowing Schnitzer to handle and dispose of its treated metal-shredder waste as nonhazardous although the material otherwise meets the state’s definition of hazardous waste. In 2014, the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) Health & Safety Code 25150.82, specifically addressed metal-shredding facilities.The trial court concluded that section 25150.82 imposed a mandatory duty on the Department to rescind the (f) letters, such that Schnitzer must handle its treated metal-shredder waste as hazardous. The court of appeal reversed. After the adoption of section 25150.82, the Department commissioned a study, addressing environmental problems associated with metal shredding. Based on that study, the Department initiated regulatory actions aimed at metal-shredding facilities and their untreated waste. Metal shredders must comply with the HWCL but the study confirmed that once metal-shredding waste has been appropriately treated, it can be safely handled and disposed of as non-hazardous. Schnitzer’s (f) letter authorizing this practice was issued under an HWCL regulation, and there is no basis for concluding it does not comply with the HWCL. View "Athletics Investment Group, LLC v. Department of Toxic Substances Control" on Justia Law

California law requires notification to “a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss occurred” when a gun is lost or stolen. (Penal Code 25250(a)), within five days of the time when the owner or possessor knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost. Morgan Hill adopted its own missing firearm reporting requirement, requiring notification to the Police Department within 48 hours of discovering a gun is missing if the gun owner lives in Morgan Hill, or the loss occurs there.A Morgan Hill resident and the California Rifle & Pistol Association sued, asserting the ordinance is preempted by the state law's five-day reporting requirement. The trial court found no preemption and granted the city summary judgment. The court of appeal affirmed. Local governments are free to impose stricter gun regulations than state law. If it is possible to violate the ordinance without violating state law, as it is here, there is no duplication. The ordinance does not contradict state law. Given the significant local safety interests at stake, cities are allowed to impose more stringent firearm regulations than state law prescribes. View "Kirk v. City of Morgan Hill" on Justia Law

In 2014, Poway Unified School District (the District) constructed a new elementary school. The $82 million project was funded primarily by special tax bonds paid for by homeowners in local communities. Approximately four years later, following the passage of Proposition 51, the District received reimbursement funds from the State of California ($27,672,923). The District allocated a small portion to retire local bonds but used a larger amount toward new high priority outlay expenditures. Two homeowners, Albert Bates and Bridget Denihan, disagreed with the District’s fund allocation decision and filed a petition for a writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court denied all relief and entered a judgment in the District’s favor. On appeal, the Homeowners contended California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 1859.90.5 and Education Code section 17070.631 required the District to allocate all newly acquired “State Funds” toward retiring the local bonds, unless it could prove there was a savings during construction (but there was none). The Court of Appeal concluded the Homeowners’ arguments had merit, and reversed the judgment. View "Bates v. Poway Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Respondents are a group of college students, all of which face criminal charges for marching though San Luis Obispo in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. Respondents sought recusal of the San Luis Obisbo District Attorney's Office on the basis that the District Attorney had a well-publicized association with critics of the Black Lives Matter movement. The trial court granted respondents' motion, appointing the Attorney General to the case, and the District Attorney and Attorney General appealed.On appeal, the Second Appellate District affirmed. Based on social media posts, public statements and targeted fundraising appeal to undermine the Black Lives Matter movement, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the San Luis Obisbo District Attorney's Office was not likely to treat respondents fairly. View "P. v. Lastra" on Justia Law

Appellants Patricia Flores and Angelica Sanchez appealed after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor defendant City of San Diego (the City). Flores and Sanchez sued the City for wrongful death and negligence, respectively, in connection with the death of William Flores, who was operating a motorcycle that was the subject of a police vehicle pursuit when he crashed and was killed. The City moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was immune from liability under the grant of immunity provided for in Vehicle Code section 17004.7. The Court of Appeal concluded that the vehicle pursuit policy training required by section 17004.7 had to meet certain basic standards that were set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 1081, as adopted by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (the POST Commission), including an annual one-hour minimum time standard set out in that regulation, before a governmental entity was entitled to immunity under the statute. "Not only did the City fail to present undisputed evidence that the training it provided in the year prior to the incident at issue met the annual one-hour standard, but the City failed to dispute the fact, put forth by appellants, that the training implemented by the City comprised a single video of less than half the required one-hour duration." In the absence of training that met the standards imposed by Regulation 1081, as required by section 17004.7, the City was not entitled to immunity under that statute, as a matter of law. Summary judgment in favor of the City was therefore erroneously granted, and the judgment had to be reversed. View "Flores v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

After “one of the driest years in recorded state history,” in 2015 the Water Resources Control Board issued orders to curtail water use in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The trial court concluded that the Board’s curtailment notices violated the due process rights of irrigation districts and water agencies by failing to provide them with a pre-deprivation hearing or any other opportunity to challenge the bases for the notices. The court addressed the due process issue, even though it was technically moot.The court of appeal affirmed. The Board has no authority, under Water Code section 1052(a), to curtail the diversion or use of water by holders of valid pre-1914 appropriative water rights—a group with distinctive rights rooted in the history of California water law--on the sole ground that there is insufficient water to service their priorities of right due to drought conditions. This statutory language “subject to this division other than as authorized in this division” excludes the diversion or use of water within the scope of a valid pre-1914 appropriative right, even during times of limited water supply. Section 1052(a) provides the Board authority to enjoin a diversion or use of water that falls outside the scope of a right held by a pre-1914 appropriative right holder. View "California Water Curtailment Cases" on Justia Law