Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

The California Coastal Act of 1976 (“the Act”) requires, among other things, a city to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission for any amendments to its coastal plan. Local coastal programs contain a land use plan and a local implementing program. A local implementing program consists of zoning ordinances, zoning maps, and other possible actions.The City of Manhattan Beach (“the City”) sent the plaintiff a notice of violation for operating a short-term rental. The plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate to prevent the City from enforcing its ban on short-term rentals. The trial court determined that the City’s original local implementing plan permitted short-term rentals. Thus, when the City enacted the prohibition on short-term rentals it needed to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission. The City appealed.The Second Appellate District affirmed. The City’s residential zoning ordinance prior to the modifications at issue did not distinguish between long-term and short-term rentals. The court held that the use of the term “residence” doesn’t affect the analysis because it does not apply some minimum length of occupancy. View "Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach" on Justia Law

This case arose from an ongoing investigation by the district attorneys’ offices of several California counties into the debt collection practices of Alorica Inc. (Alorica), specifically the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In November 2019, the district attorneys' offices (collectively referred to as the State) served Alorica with an investigative subpoena. The subpoena contained 11 separate document requests and covered the time period from February 2015 through the date the subpoena was served. The State directed Alorica to respond by December 13, 2019, and to specify whether any of the requested records were no longer in Alorica’s “possession, custody or control.” Alorica served its objections and responses to the subpoena. Alorica objected to most of the requests, and argued that the requests violated Alorica’s right to privacy and right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Alorica claimed that it did not have any debt collection clients, so it denied having any of the requested agreements with clients related to debt collection, policies and procedures relating to the collection of consumer debt, or call records of debt collection calls as to the defined top five clients. One year later, in November 2020, the People petitioned for an order compelling full compliance with the subpoena. Alorica opposed and argued that it was not a debt collector subject to the Rosenthal Act, so the subpoena was invalid as it was not reasonably relevant to an investigation concerning debt collection. Alorica ultimately lost its argument and was ordered to produce files in accordance with the administrative subpoena. View "California v. Alorica, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Christopher Teacher filed a complaint seeking a writ of administrative mandate against California Western School of Law (CWSL) challenging the procedures CWSL followed in expelling him from the law school. The trial court denied Teacher’s request for a writ and entered a judgment in favor of CWSL. On appeal, Teacher claimed, among other things, that CWSL failed to provide him with a fair administrative process in expelling him. The Court of Appeal concurred, finding CWSL’s disciplinary procedures expressly provided, “The student or the student’s spokesperson shall have the right to cross[-]examine witnesses.” Notwithstanding this, CWSL did not afford Teacher the opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses on whose statements CWSL relied in reaching its decision to expel Teacher. In light of the fact that CWSL deprived Teacher of this important right guaranteed by its own procedures, the Court reversed judgment, emphasizing that it did not reach any conclusion as to Teacher’s commission of the misconduct that CWSL alleged. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Teacher v. Cal. Western School of Law" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Nicholas Brown (Nick), through his mother and Guardian ad Litem Laurie Brown (Laurie), brought a personal injury action against defendant El Dorado Union High School District (the District) after Nick suffered a traumatic brain injury during a football game. After the District brought a summary judgment motion, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the District on two grounds: (1) the case was barred by the affirmative defense of an express assumption of risk due to a release and waiver Nick and his father signed prior to the football season; and (2) the action was barred by the principle of the primary assumption of risk. Nick appealed, challenging the trial court’s decision to accept a less-than-perfect separate statement of undisputed material facts filed by the District, evidentiary rulings, and the substance of the trial court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal found the trial court acted within its discretion in accepting the separate statement, Nick failed to sufficiently develop his arguments regarding the court’s evidentiary rulings, and summary judgment was proper due to the Browns’ express assumption of the risks associated with Nick’s participation in the football program. View "Brown v. El Dorado Union High School Dist." on Justia Law