Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant, a former police officer, was terminated from the Merced City Police Department (Department) based on allegations he conducted an illegal search, submitted a false police report, and committed perjury at a court hearing. Appellant appealed to the personnel board (Board), which found the City of Merced (City) failed to show Appellant had submitted a false police report or had conducted an illegal search. However, the Board found that Appellant was not truthful in explaining certain details concerning the search. Consequently, the Board rejected the majority of charges against Appellant, but sustained portions of charges relating to his untruthfulness. The Board recommended that Appellant not be terminated, but instead that he be demoted without backpay. The Merced City Manager reversed the decision and upheld Appellant’s termination. The trial court rejected Appellant’s challenges to the city manager’s decision.   The Fifth Appellate District concluded that the trial court erred in upholding several of the charges against Appellant. The court explained that while it upholds several other charges, it remanded for the trial court to determine whether the surviving charges are sufficient to support the consequence of termination. The court upheld the court’s apparent finding that Appellant intentionally opened the bag and that Appellant’s testimony that the bag opened inadvertently as a result of how he grabbed the straps was untruthful. The court wrote that it cannot affirm the judgment because the possibility remains that the trial court could conclude, in its independent judgment, that the surviving charges are insufficient to support Defendant’s termination (i.e., that the termination decision was an abuse of discretion). View "Cruz v. City of Merced" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendants Jeff Jenkins, Jeff Jenkins Productions, LLC, and Bongo, LLC, for breach of contract and eight other causes of action. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged she conceived the idea for and worked to develop and coproduce a popular television program that came to be known as Bling Empire on Netflix. In the spring of 2018, Plaintiff presented the idea for the program to Defendant Jenkins during a series of discussions, and she gave Jenkins written development material concerning the program. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and other claims. Defendants responded with an anti-SLAPP motion.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order denying Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint. The court concluded that adhering to the two-part test announced in FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133 (FilmOn), that while the creation of a television show is an exercise of constitutionally protected expression, in this case, there is no “functional relationship” between the activity challenged in the complaint and the issue of public interest, as required by FilmOn.  Further, the court wrote that the conduct challenged, while it “implicates” a public issue, does not “contribute to public discussion of that issue” Consequently, Defendants’ activity excluding Plaintiff and failing to compensate her was not undertaken “in furtherance of free speech ‘in connection with’ an issue of public interest.” View "Li v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff fell while stepping from a dock to a boat. He sued his employer—a yacht club in Long Beach—under federal admiralty law. The trial court sustained the club’s final demurrer to the second amended complaint. The court ruled there was no admiralty jurisdiction.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the court’s ruling without deciding about admiralty jurisdiction. The court explained that Congress in 1984 specified employees covered by state workers’ compensation law working at a “club” are covered by state workers’ compensation law and not federal law if they are eligible for state workers’ compensation. The court wrote that Plaintiff concedes the yacht club is a “club.” Federal law thus makes California state workers’ compensation law paramount, which means Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is workers’ compensation. The court wrote that a core part of the state workers’ compensation bargain is that injured workers get speedy and predictable relief irrespective of fault. In return, workers are barred from suing their employers in tort. Thus, the trial court correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s tort suit against his employer. View "Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club" on Justia Law

Barrera and Varguez sued Apple, a nationwide restaurant chain, to recover civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Labor Code 2698) for Labor Code violations suffered by them and by other employees. Apple unsuccessfully moved to compel arbitration.The court of appeal reversed in part, first rejecting a claim that Apple waived the right to arbitrate by “litigating this case for over a year” before moving to compel arbitration. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, "Viking River Cruises," and the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. 1), the court concluded that the parties’ agreements require arbitration of the PAGA claims that seek to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations committed against the plaintiffs. The PAGA claims seeking civil penalties for Labor Code violations committed against other employees may be pursued by the plaintiffs in the trial court. In defining the scope of arbitrable claims, the Agreements permissibly provide that only individual PAGA claims can be arbitrated. The plaintiffs’ individual claims can be arbitrated—unless the Agreements are unenforceable on some other ground; the plaintiffs did not meet their burden in establishing the Agreements are unconscionable. The court remanded for determination of whether a stay of the non-individual PAGA claims would be appropriate. View "Barrera v. Apple American Group LLC" on Justia Law

Piplack and Taylor are lead plaintiffs in Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) (Labor Code 2698) representative actions in Orange and Los Angeles Counties against In-N-Out. Upon learning of settlement negotiations in a subsequent, overlapping PAGA action brought by Accurso against In-N-Out in Sonoma County, Piplack and Taylor filed a proposed complaint in intervention in the Sonoma County action, and moved to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 and 2 for a stay. The trial court denied the motions.The court of appeal vacated. Non-party PAGA claimants who seek to intervene in overlapping PAGA cases must have a “significantly protectable interest” that meets the threshold requirements of section 387. A personal interest is not required. The court upheld the denial of mandatory intervention; although Piplack and Taylor have significantly protectable interests, they failed to prove inadequate representation or potential impairment of their protectable interests. The court remanded the issue of permissive intervention for a “discretionary weighing of whether Piplack and Taylor propose to add anything to this case, the importance of which outweighs any objections Accurso and In-N-Out may have to the court hearing it.” View "Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers" on Justia Law

LaCour, a former Marshalls employee, filed suit under the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) (Labor Code 2698) in January 2021. Marshalls argued that LaCour, having left Marshalls in May 2019, had only a year and 65 days to bring a claim and missed that deadline. Marshalls also argued that all allegations of violations pre-dating November 17, 2020, must be stricken because PAGA claims against Marshalls through that date were released in the settlement of an earlier class and PAGA action (Rodriguez).The court held that California Rules of Court emergency rule 9, put into effect during the pandemic, validly extended the limitations period by six months and that LaCour could pursue claims for violations occurring after the Rodriguez settlement's effective date. The court rejected LaCour’s argument that the Rodriguez plaintiff had no authority to settle claims encompassed by LaCour’s notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA); the Rodriguez LWDA notice letter listed several Labor Code provisions, including section 2802—which provided the legal basis for LaCour’s PAGA claims, even though, factually, the notices alleged different policies. The court then dismissed because LaCour was not a Marshalls's employee after November 17, 2019, and was not an “aggrieved employee” under PAGA and had no standing to sue.The court of appeal vacated. LaCour’s PAGA complaint was timely filed but the trial court erred in giving claim preclusive effect to a federal court judgment in a prior PAGA case. View "LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC" on Justia Law

When the Covid pandemic struck, the California State University (CSU) directed that instruction be provided remotely. To provide such instruction, Plaintiff, a biology professor at CSU-Los Angeles, incurred expenses that CSU refused to reimburse for a computer and other equipment. Plaintiff sued CSU’s board of trustees on behalf of himself and similarly situated faculty, alleging Labor Code section 2802 obligated CSU to reimburse employees for necessary work-related expenses. CSU demurred, arguing that as a department of the state, it enjoys broad exemption from Labor Code provisions that infringe on its sovereign powers. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained CSU’s demurrer without leave to amend.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that absent express words or positive indicia to the contrary, a governmental agency is not within the general words of a statute. The court further wrote that although this exemption is limited to cases where the application of the statute would impair the entity’s sovereignty, subjecting CSU to Labor Code section 2802, in this case, would do so because it would infringe on the broad discretion CSU enjoys under the Education Code to set its own equipment reimbursement policies. Further, the court noted that because CSU did not violate section 2802, Plaintiff is not an aggrieved employee for purposes of PAGA. His PAGA claim therefore fails with his section 2802 claim. View "Krug v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State Univ." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was placed on unpaid administrative leave and then terminated from her employment with defendant Sequoia Union Elementary School District (the School District) after refusing to either provide verification of her COVID-19 vaccination status or undergo weekly testing as required by a then-operative order of the State Public Health Officer.Plaintiff brought suit under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act against defendants the School District; Sequoia Union Elementary School (the School); and the School principal and superintendent, alleging (1) discrimination due to her refusal to authorize release of her medical information and (2) unauthorized use of her medical information.The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, finding each claim failed as a matter of law due to certain statutory exceptions.Without any factual allegations that defendants received any “medical information,” such as medical records, a medical certification, or other information in “electronic or physical form... derived from a provider of health care” (section 56.05, subd.(i)), the Fifth Appellate District found that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for unauthorized use of such information under section 56.20(c). View "Rossi v. Sequoia Union Elementary School" on Justia Law

North Coast Village Condominium Association (the Association) filed a workplace violence restraining order in support of its board president, Neil Anderson, and 46 other employees and board members seeking to restrain resident, defendant-appellant Nancy Phillips. At the conclusion of a three-day hearing, the trial court denied the Association’s request. It then sua sponte and absent a request to amend the pleadings by either party, awarded Anderson a civil harassment restraining order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 against Phillips “in the interest of judicial efficiency and conforming pleadings to proof.” In so doing, it impliedly amended the pleadings to add Anderson as a party. Phillips appealed, requesting that the Court of Appeal reverse the order granting the civil harassment restraining order and enter judgment dismissing all restraining orders with prejudice. The Association filed a cross-appeal seeking reversal of the order denying the workplace violence restraining order. It also requested that the Court reverse and remand with instructions to enter a restraining order that included stay-away orders. The Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte amending the cause of action and petitioning party without adequate notice. Regarding the cross-appeal, the Court further concluded the trial court erred in interpreting and applying section 527.8. The order was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "North Coast Village Condominium Assn. v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Three former deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (department) were discharged from their employment for alleged misconduct. The former deputies filed administrative appeals with the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (commission). While their appeals were pending, the former deputies executed settlement agreements with department personnel that purported to reinstate the former deputies to employment. The County of Los Angeles (county) thereafter refused to comply with these settlement agreements. The former deputies and a labor union for department personnel (collectively, Appellants) filed suit against the county, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (board of supervisors or board), the department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff (sheriff), the Los Angeles County Counsel (county counsel), and the Director of Personnel for the County of Los Angeles (director of personnel) (collectively, Respondents). Appellants sought enforcement of the settlements through mandamus, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel claims. The trial court sustained Respondents’ demurrers to Appellants’ pleading without leave to amend.   The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s judgments of dismissal. The court conclude that with the exception of the portion of Appellants’ declaratory relief cause of action that is premised on an alleged procedural due process violation, the trial court erred in denying Appellants leave to amend. Given that the trial court was reviewing Appellants’ first pleading and that Appellants could potentially discover the legal basis (if any) for the department’s alleged long-standing apparent belief that its personnel have the authority to settle commission appeals on their own. The court concluded that allowing appellants to file an amended pleading would not be an exercise in futility. View "Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of L.A." on Justia Law