Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Two City of Santa Ana Police officers were the subjects of an internal affairs investigation based on their conduct during the execution of a search warrant at a marijuana dispensary. The Santa Ana Police Department initiated the investigation after video recordings of the officers were released to the media. The video recordings were made by the dispensary owners without the knowledge of the officers, who had removed all known recording devices before executing the warrant. Plaintiffs Santa Ana Police Officers Association (SAPOA) and the officers (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought this lawsuit against the City of Santa Ana, the Santa Ana Police Department, and the Santa Ana Chief of Police (collectively, Defendants) and asserted two causes of action arising out of the investigation: (1) Defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by using the video recordings made at the marijuana dispensary as the basis for, and as evidence in, the internal affairs investigation; and (2) Defendants violated Government Code section 3303(g), part of the Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights Act, by refusing to produce tape recordings of the initial interrogations of the officers, transcribed stenographer notes, and any reports or complaints made by the investigators or other persons, before interrogating the officers a second time. The trial court sustained, without leave to amend, Defendants demurrer to the first amended complaint (the Complaint). Plaintiffs appealed that decision. The Court of Appeals concluded the Complaint did not, and could not, state a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act because the officers had no reasonable expectation as a matter of law that their communications during the raid of the marijuana dispensary were not being overheard, watched, or recorded. The Court also concluded, however, the second cause of action states a cause of action for violation of the Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights Act because, under section 3303(g), Defendants were required to produce the tape recordings of the initial interrogations, transcribed stenographer notes, and reports and complaints made by the investigators or other persons, before the officers were interrogated a second time. View "Santa Ana Police Off. Assn. v. City of Santa Ana." on Justia Law

In 2004, Hesperia began acquiring vacant property in its downtown for development of a Civic Plaza, with a city hall, public library, other government buildings and “complimentary retail, restaurant, and entertainment establishments.” Cinema West articulated a plan to develop a cinema immediately west of the Civic Plaza Park: the city would convey 54,000 square feet of real property to Cinema for $102,529, the property‘s fair market value; Cinema would construct a 38,000-square foot, 12-screen digital theatre; the city would construct the necessary parking lot, develop a water retention system for the theater and the parking lot, and install off-site improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalks. Cinema would execute a 10-year operating agreement with the city. The city later made a $250,000 forgivable loan to Cinema to aid with a $700,000 anticipated shortfall. As development of the theater and parking lot was nearing completion, the Electrical Workers Union requested a public works coverage determination under California‘s prevailing wage law (Lab. Code, 1720–18611 ) The State Department of Industrial Relations concluded that the project was subject to the prevailing wage requirement. The court of appeal affirmed, noting that Cinema received the benefit of a new, publicly-funded parking lot adjacent to the theater, which, though owned by the city, is Cinema‘s to use for as long as it operates the theater. View "Cinema West v. Baker" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Michael Shames appealed an order pertaining to attorney fees. Shames filed this lawsuit against Defendant Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) and two individual plaintiffs, alleging multiple causes of action, after UCAN terminated his employment. The case proceeded to trial, and Shames prevailed on three causes of action, including one in which he sought unpaid wages in the form of bonus payments that were due to him pursuant to an incentive program. After judgment was entered, Shames sought to recover the attorney fees that he incurred in litigating his claims. Shames relied on two statutes for his request for attorney fees, but only one of those statutes was at issue in this appeal: Labor Code section 218.5. The trial court denied Shames's request for attorney fees under section 218.5, concluding that he had failed to request attorney fees "upon the initiation of the action" because he did not request attorney fees in his initial complaint. In the alternative, Shames's request for attorney fees in his amended complaint was not sufficient to permit him to recover attorney fees as costs pursuant to section 218.5. Shames's amended pleading did not request attorney fees generally, nor did it request attorney fees under section 218.5 with respect to the cause of action in which Shames alleged that UCAN had failed to pay him his full wages. Rather, the amended pleading included a reference to section 218.5 only as to a cause of action that was not brought on account of the nonpayment of wages, and one on which UCAN, not Shames, prevailed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the trial court. View "Shames v. Utility Consumers' Action Network" on Justia Law

In 2008, a citizen with whom non-probationary officer Morgado interacted filed a complaint against him with the Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) of the City’s Police Department. OCC investigated and shared its findings and recommendations with the chief of police. After further investigation by the internal affairs division, the Chief filed a disciplinary complaint with the Police Commission against Morgado in 2009. Morgado, represented by counsel, participated in a hearing before the full Commission, at the conclusion of which the Commission decided to terminate his employment. Morgado sued. The city acknowledged that it did not provide Morgado with an “administrative appeal” from the Commission’s decision. Government Code section 3304(b) provides that “[n]o punitive action . . . shall be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer . . . without providing the public safety officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal.” The court of appeal affirmed that the city’s procedure for disciplining police officers violates the statute. View "Morgado v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

In a challenge to a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order, the Court of Appeal held that a writ petition was timely filed. The court also held that despite significant changes in the law governing workers' compensation in 2004, disability resulting from medical treatment for which the employer is responsible is not subject to apportionment. In this case, petitioner contended that because her permanent total disability was the result of a failed surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome, a condition she contracted primarily due to the clerical work she performed for Costco for more than 25 years, apportionment was not appropriate. The court annuled the Board's order and remanded for an increase in petitioner's disability award. View "Hikida v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Toyota, for discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code, 12900 et seq., as well as for wrongful discharge. The trial court granted summary judgment for Toyota. The Court of Appeal reversed and held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that a substantial motivating factor for his termination was invidious sex or gender stereotyping related to his sexual orientation (the perception that he was "too gay"). However, the court held that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact to support his FEHA retaliation and related common law tort claim. Accordingly, the court remanded for the trial court to enter an order granting Toyota's alternative motion for summary adjudication as to these causes of action. View "Husman v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner, an in-home caretaker for the Department of Social Services, was riding her bicycle from one private home where she worked to another home where she was scheduled to work when she was struck and injured by a car. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board concluded that the going and coming rule barred her claim for benefits. However, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found that the required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule applied because petitioner was impliedly required to provide her own transportation between patients' homes. The appeals board then concluded that petitioner's injury arose out of and in the course of employment. In this case, petitioner's transit was for the benefit of the Department and was impliedly requested by the Department. The Court of Appeal annulled the appeals board's earlier decision and remanded with directions to issue a new decision and opinion consistent with this opinion. View "Yu Qin Zhu v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law

Kao was employed by Joy Holiday, a travel tour company. Kao had come to the U.S., lived with the company’s owners, and had worked for a net “allowance” of $1,700 per month for 11 months while waiting for his work visa. After he obtained that visa, he continued to work for the company until his termination. He sued, alleging breach of contract and that his monthly salary of $2,000 to $2,500 was below statutory standards for work in excess of 40 hours a week. (29 U.S.C. 201.; Lab. Code, 1194.2.) The court ruled against Kao on his breach of contract and statutory claims but awarded damages for unpaid labor under the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Kao is entitled to compensation under the wage statutes, making an equitable remedy unnecessary. The court noted the parties’ express agreement establishing Kao's work requirements and compensation and concluded that the trial court erred in finding that he was not entitled to itemized wage statements and that the delay in paying his final compensation was excusable. View "Kao v. Joy Holiday" on Justia Law

Monterey County entered into an agreement with the Monterey County Deputy Sheriffs Association, including a longevity performance stipend that provided that a member of the Association who achieved 20 years of service with the county and a satisfactory or outstanding performance evaluation could receive an additional stipend of up to eight percent. Plaintiffs sued the county, the Sheriff’s Office, and the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), seeking to compel the county to report the longevity performance stipend to CalPERS as an item of special compensation and to compel CalPERS to include the longevity performance stipend in calculating their retirement benefits. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that the longevity performance stipend was not reportable to CalPERS as an item of special compensation under California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 571(a), and granted judgment on the pleadings. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the longevity performance stipend does not qualify as an item of special compensation that must be reported to CalPERS and included in the calculation of plaintiffs’ retirement benefits. View "DiCarlo v. County of Monterey" on Justia Law

AMR provides ambulance services in more than 15 California counties, employing dispatchers, call takers, drivers, emergency medical technicians (EMT’s), paramedics and nurses. Plaintiffs, four current or former employees, claimed that AMR failed to provide the meal and rest periods to which they were entitled under Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and the applicable wage orders issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. They alleged a class claim under the Labor Code; a class claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200, the Unfair Competition Law; and a claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), a representative action not subject to class action requirements. The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of class certification as based on an incorrect legal assumption about the nature of rest periods: that a rest period during which an employee remains on call may be considered an off-duty rest period. The court acknowledged that there may be other bases on which the trial court may conclude on remand that plaintiffs have not shown the predominance of common issues required for class certification of their overarching rest period claim. View "Bartoni v. American Medical Response West" on Justia Law