Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a hearing, the California Gambling Control Commission (Commission) revoked and refused to renew the gambling license of cross-appellant Eric Swallow. The Commission also imposed a monetary penalty and costs against Swallow. Swallow petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate, challenging the revocation and nonrenewal of his gambling license, the amount of the monetary penalty, and the costs. The trial court granted Swallow’s petition in part and denied it in part, concluding the Commission did not violate Swallow’s due process rights when it revoked and refused to renew Swallow’s gambling license, except that the Commission may have relied on unproven misconduct. The trial court therefore remanded to the Commission “to ensure that Swallow is not disciplined based on misconduct that was not proven.” The trial court also concluded the amount of the monetary penalty imposed by the Commission was not supported by law, and the costs could only be assessed by the ALJ on remand. It therefore vacated the penalty and costs imposed and remanded for the Commission to redetermine the amount of the penalty and to refer the issue of costs to the ALJ. Both the Commission and Swallow appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded: (1) Business and Professions Code section 19930(c), when considered within the statutory and regulatory framework of the Gambling Control Act, did not authorize the monetary penalty; (2) the Commission had jurisdiction to revoke Swallow’s gambling license; (3) the Commission did not violate Swallow’s due process rights; (4) Swallow failed to present a proper argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence; and (5) the trial court properly remanded the issue of costs for further proceedings. The Court modified the judgment granting the peremptory writ of mandate to order the Commission to reconsider the monetary penalty in a manner consistent with its opinion instead of the trial court’s order. View "Swallow v. Cal. Gambling Control Commission" on Justia Law

Hospitals provided emergency medical services to members of the county’s health plan, which is licensed and regulated by the state Department of Managed Health Care under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act, Health & Saf. Code 1340. The county reimbursed the Hospitals for $28,500 of a claimed $144,000. The Hospitals sued, alleging breach of an implied-in-fact or implied-in-law contract. The trial court rejected the county’s argument that it is immune from the Hospitals’ suit under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code 810).The court of appeal reversed. The county is immune from common law claims under the Government Claims Act and the Hospitals did not state a claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. The county does not contest its obligation to reimburse the Hospitals for the reasonable and customary value of the services; the issue is what remedies may be pursued against the county when the reasonableness of the reimbursement is disputed. The Knox-Keene Act provides alternative mechanisms to challenge the amount of emergency medical services reimbursements. A health care service plan has greater remedies against a private health care service plan than it does against a public entity health care service plan, a result driven by the Legislature broadly immunizing public entities from common law claims and electing not to abrogate that immunity in this context. View "County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The City of San Diego (the City) sued Experian Data Corp. (Experian) on behalf of the State of California for violating the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The City hired three private law firms to represent it in the litigation against Experian on a contingency fee basis. The trial court denied Experian’s motion to disqualify the private law firms. In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeal found the contingency fee arrangements between the City and the private law firms in a UCL action filed by the City’s attorneys did not violate the prosecutor’s duty of neutrality and therefore did not require disqualification. Further, the Court found agreements to pay the private law firms from any penalties recovered from Experian did not violate Business and Professions Code section 17206’s requirement that all funds recovered in a UCL action be paid to the City’s treasurer. View "California ex rel. City of San Diego v. Experian Data Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner State of California (the “State”) is a defendant in an action in which Plaintiffs sought damages for wrongful death and personal injuries suffered in an automobile collision. The superior court ordered the State to produce unredacted accident reports revealing identifying information of the parties and witnesses involved in accidents that occurred in the same area.   The Second Appellate Division denied the State’s petition for a writ of mandate and required the State to reveal the information the Plaintiffs/real parties in interest seek. Petitioner argued the superior court abused its discretion when it ruled that personally identifiable information was not protected under section 20014 of the Vehicle Code. Plaintiffs contended that under section 20012 they have a proper interest in the disclosure of unredacted police reports. The court reasoned that Plaintiffs have shown the accidents are similar in nature and the evidence of the reported accidents “either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Thus, this evidence illustrated that Plaintiffs are persons with a “proper interest” in obtaining the unredacted accident reports they seek. View "State of Cal. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The November 2020 election included three seats on the five-member East Palo Alto City Council. Seven candidates ran. Lopez came in third, with Lincoln fourth. Lincoln filed a 14-page statement of contest, alleging Lopez violated Elections Code section 18370, by “ electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place”; and section 18522, “by offering valuable consideration to voters voting” by giving away free tacos (allowing a taco truck to block a handicap parking space). City clerk Solorzano filed an answer. Eleven witnesses testified, including Lincoln and Lopez; two San Mateo County Officials; several current and former City Council members; a person present at the polling site to conduct COVID-19 testing; a Lincoln supporter; and the owner of the taco truck.The court’s 23-page statement of decision concluded that Lincoln did not prove by clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of the evidence that Lopez committed an offense against the elective franchise. The court of appeal affirmed. “Lincoln’s argument is based on a version of the record that is contrary to all principles of appellate review—not to mention that it fails to address the significance of the trial court’s conclusions as to his two primary claims.” The court awarded Lopez costs on appeal. View "Lincoln v. Lopez" on Justia Law

For more than two decades, San Benito County provided health insurance benefits for its employees under the Public Employees’ Medical Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA), which requires a participating county to pay retiree health insurance benefits at the same contribution rate it pays to active employees. In 2017, the county ceased providing benefits under PEMHCA and reduced the health insurance benefit contribution for Medicare-eligible retirees. Retired county employees claimed that the county’s actions violated an implied promise that, upon their retirement, they would receive “fully paid” lifetime retiree health insurance benefits, with premium contributions equal to those paid for active employees.The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court of appeal reversed. The trial court erred in considering inadmissible evidence to ascertain legislative intent and in failing to apply the presumption against finding an implied vested right in the absence of a clear manifestation of legislative intent to contractually bind the county. The trial court considered evidence beyond the legislative record, including the testimony of former members of the county’s board of supervisors and other former county employees regarding their knowledge and understanding of the county’s provision of retiree health insurance benefits. The plaintiffs’ admissible evidence does not support a finding of an implied vested right. View "Rose v. County of San Benito" on Justia Law

When a person is arrested for driving under the influence, the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") holds a hearing to determine if the driver's license should be suspended. The DMV requires that the hearing officers act as both advocates for the DMV as well as triers of fact. The DMV also authorizes managers to change hearing officers’ decisions, or demand hearing officers change their decisions, without providing notice to the driver.Plaintiffs, a group of lawyers, challenged the DMV's administrative hearings process on three grounds. The district court resolved one of Plaintiffs' grounds in favor of the DMV in summary judgment, entering judgment as a matter of law for Plaintiffs on their two remaining claims. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the hearing officers' dual roles as an advocate for the DMV and adjudicator violates drivers’ due process rights; and (2) granting the DMV’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim.The Second Appellate District reversed on these issues, finding Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all their 1983 claim. The lack of neutral hearing officers violates drivers’ federal and state due process rights. The court also found that the trial court did not err in awarding attorneys fees to Plaintiffs. However, because Plaintiff's succeeded on appeal, the court remanded the case for a recalculation of the attorney's fee award. View "California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Cal. Dept. of Motor Vehicles CA2/" on Justia Law

The plaintiff Kern Water Bank Authority Conservation (“KWBA”), is a public agency consisting of five water districts. KWBA operates Kern Water Bank ("KWB"). Surface water from various sources, including the Kern River, is diverted onto land owned by the KWBA to recharge the KWB. In dry years, KWBA recovers water from the KWB. The defendant Buena is a water storage district located within Kern County.The Kern Water Bank Project ("the Project") was proposed by KWBA and is designed “to directly divert up to 500,000 [acre-feet-per-year] from the Kern River within the KWB through existing diversion works and recharge facilities located on the KWB lands, and/or to deliver water directly to KWBA’s participating members’ service areas via [existing canals]. KWBA prepared an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to evaluate the Project's environmental impacts. At issue on appeal is whether: (1) the Project descriptions of Project water and existing water rights satisfied The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requirements; (2) a complete quantification of existing Kern River water rights was not required; and (3) the EIR properly evaluated the environmental impacts. The appellate court found the EIR complied with CEQA requirements by inadequately assessing long-term recovery operations on groundwater levels. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that there will not be a significant impact on groundwater levels because the Project will not increase long-term recovery beyond historical (baseline) operations. The appellate court reversed the district court’s judgment and ruled that defendant shall recover costs on appeal. View "Buena Vista Wat. Storage Dist. v. Kern Wat. Bank Authority" on Justia Law

Relator Gilbert Ellinger brought a qui tam suit on behalf of the People of the State of California against Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), ESIS, Inc. (ESIS), and Stephanie Ann Magill, under Insurance Code section 1871.7, a provision of the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA). In January 2016, Ellinger injured his back while working, and he immediately informed his supervisor. The following month, Ellinger reported to his employer’s human resources manager that he had sustained a work-related injury and had told his supervisor about it. The human resources manager created a “time line memorandum” summarizing the conversations she had with Ellinger about the injury. She placed the memorandum in Ellinger’s personnel file. Ellinger filed a workers’ compensation claim. Magill worked as a senior claims examiner for ESIS and was the adjuster assigned to investigate Ellinger’s claim. ESIS denied Ellinger’s claim on an unspecified date. Magill later testified that she denied the claim because of a written statement from Ellinger’s supervisor in which the supervisor claimed that Ellinger had not reported the injury to him. When the human resources manager was deposed in November 2016, she produced the time line memorandum, which Ellinger’s counsel in the workers’ compensation action did not know about until then. Nearly eight months after that disclosure, in July 2017, ESIS reversed its denial of the claim and stipulated that Ellinger was injured while working, as he had alleged. Contrary to Magill’s testimony, her email messages showed that the human resources manager had emailed Magill the time line memorandum in March and April 2016, and Magill thanked the manager for sending it. Ellinger alleged that Magill’s concealment of or failure to disclose the time line memorandum violated Penal Code section 550 (b)(1) to (3). On the basis of those alleged violations, Ellinger alleged that defendants were liable under section 1871.7. Against each defendant, Ellington sought a civil penalty and an assessment of no greater than three times the amount of his workers’ compensation claim. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend, concluding defendants could not be held liable under section 1871.7 for any failures of Magill in the claims handling or review process. Finding no reversible error in sustaining the demurrers, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California ex rel. Ellinger v. Magill" on Justia Law

Petitioner sent a request to the real party in interest, the County of Kern (the “County”), under the California Public Records Act (the “Act”) seeking the names of all persons arrested by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department for driving under the influence (DUI) from March 1, 2020, to April 1, 2020. The County provided some information but did not provide the arrestees’ names.The Fifth Appellate District concluded the trial court could have correctly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend based on the holding in County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.App.4th. (1993). Furthermore, although the Legislature has not defined what “contemporaneous” means in this context, the court concluded the information sought by the petitioner, which was nearly a year old when she filed her request, should not be considered “contemporaneous” information. Thus, the court denied the petition finding that the arrest information sought in this case is not subject to disclosure. However, the court noted that the conclusion should be limited as much as possible to the facts of the case. View "Kinney v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law