Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Vines sued under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code, 12900, alleging he was a 59-year-old Black man who had been subjected during his employment with O’Reilly to discriminatory treatment and harassment by his supervisor and others because of his age and race. His supervisor allegedly created false and misleading reviews of Vines, yelled at him, and denied his requests for training given to younger, non-Black employees. Although Vines repeatedly complained to management, O’Reilly took no remedial action.A jury awarded damages on his claims for retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation, Vines moved for an award of $809,681.25 in attorney fees. The trial court awarded only $129,540.44, based in part on its determination the unsuccessful discrimination and harassment claims were not sufficiently related or factually intertwined with the successful retaliation claims. The court of appeal reversed the post-judgment fee order and remanded for recalculation of Vines’s fee award. The trial court erred in finding the claims not sufficiently related or factually intertwined. Evidence of the facts regarding the alleged underlying discriminatory and harassing conduct about which Vines had complained was relevant to establish, for the retaliation cause of action, the reasonableness of his belief that conduct was unlawful. View "Vines v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting respondent attorney fees as the prevailing party pursuant to the terms of a rent guaranty agreement between her and United Grand. The court concluded that respondent is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees in light of David S. Karton, A Law Corp. v. Dougherty (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 600, and United Grand has forfeited its claims concerning attorney fees allegedly attributable to UGC's attorney alone. View "United Grand Corporation v. Stollof" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal dismissed plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's order denying attorney fees following her settlement of an action with Westlake Services under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The court concluded that plaintiff's appeal is from a nonappealable order, and plaintiff's appeal does not fall within the scope of the collateral order doctrine.The court concluded that the trial court's order concerning fees, costs and prejudgment interest was neither a judgment rendered but not yet entered within the meaning of California Rule of Court 8.104(d)(1) nor an intended ruling subsequently finalized in a judgment or order of dismissal as contemplated by rule 8.104(d)(2). Furthermore, the notice of appeal falls far outside the limited scope of the mandatory provision of rule 8.104(d)(1) and the court's discretion under rule 8.104(d)(2) to treat as appealable an otherwise nonappealable order. Even if the court had discretion to save the appeal, the court would decline to exercise it. Finally, plaintiff's appeal of the order does not fall within the scope of the collateral order doctrine where she contends that the order directs the payment of costs and prejudgment interest but did not attempt to appeal the portion of the trial court's order awarding costs and prejudgment interest. View "Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Two months after Covert filed a lawsuit for breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, FCA (an automaker) served Covert with a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 for $51,000, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Covert filed objections to that offer. Covert with a second section 998 offer, 15 months later, for $145,000 with identical terms. A jury awarded Covert $48,416 in damages and penalties.On appeal, FCA argued both of its section 998 offers were valid, and because the jury awarded Covert less than the amount of either offer, the trial court erred in awarding Covert attorneys’ fees and costs and denying FCA its costs.The court of appeal agreed that both offers were valid; the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider whether the first offer was made in good faith. Covert did not meet his burden to show the second offer was not in good faith. If the trial court finds the first offer was made in good faith, it shall award FCA its costs reasonably incurred after the first offer was served and deny Covert his attorneys’ fees and costs. If the court finds the first offer was not made in good faith, it shall award Covert his attorneys’ fees and costs reasonably incurred before the date the second offer was served and award FCA its costs, including expert witness fees, reasonably incurred thereafter. View "Covert v. FCA USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Chaganti sought a writ of error. While his appeal of a civil judgment was pending, he discovered evidence, which was not in existence at the time of the judgment, that the superior court judge who had summarily adjudicated his claims owned stock worth between $10,000 and $100,000 in AT&T. The defendants in Chaganti’s civil action, Cricket and New Cingular, are wholly owned subsidiaries of AT&T. Chaganti argued that the judge was disqualified under Code of Civil Procedure 170.1, which provides: “A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following are true: ... The judge has a financial interest in the subject matter in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding.” Financial interest means ownership of more than a one percent legal or equitable interest in a party, or a legal or equitable interest in a party of a fair market value in excess of $1,500.The action concerned a commercial lease; the named lessee was “AT&T Wireless PCS.” Rent was paid by checks from “AT&T.” The defendants were represented by “an Assistant Vice President and Senior Legal Counsel employed in the AT&T Legal Dept.” The court of appeal ordered the superior court to vacate the judgment, rejecting AT&T’s arguments that it was not a “party” to the proceeding and that Chaganti was precluded from obtaining a writ of error because he did not exercise due diligence in discovering the judge’s AT&T stock ownership. View "Chaganti v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Park sued his former attorneys for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with Park’s plan to purchase cardroom casinos. Park alleged that in 2003-2012, the defendants represented Park’s gaming businesses before the California Gambling Control Commission and the Bureau of Gambling Control. The attorney-client relationship ended with a dispute about monthly billing rates. Thereafter, the defendants allegedly thwarted Park’s efforts to secure ownership interests in the two cardroom casinos by using Park’s confidential information, assisting his competitors, and making disparaging remarks about Park to regulators and others.Park issued third-party subpoenas duces tecum to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and to Deputy Attorney General Torngren, who represents the Bureau of Gambling Control, requesting communications and documents pertaining to Park and the casinos. The DOJ reportedly reviewed several hundred thousand electronic documents but produced fewer than a hundred. During the production, the trial court ordered Park to pay $32,836.25 to defray the “undue burden or expense” of the DOJ’s compliance with Park’s subpoena. When the production was complete, the court ordered Park to pay the DOJ an additional $111,618.75. The court of appeal affirmed. The court properly exercised its discretion under the Electronic Discovery Act in the Code of Civil Procedure, section 1985.8(l). View "Park v. Law Offices of Tracey Buck-Walsh" on Justia Law

Cesar was shot and killed in 2016. Murder charges were filed against Santacruz, Cervantes, Alcantar, and Duran. Vallejo (Duran’s mother) was charged as an accessory after the fact. Judge Colin dismissed that charge against Vallejo in the interest of justice under Penal Code 1385 on February 20, 2020. Judge Colin later recused himself at the request of the prosecution. The case was assigned to Judge Clark, who found Judge Colin’s recusal to have been a concession to retroactive disqualification, and on June 22, 2020, granted the prosecution’s motion to set aside as void all rulings of Judge Colin dating back to January 9, including the February 20 dismissal, thereby reinstating the accessory count against Vallejo.The court of appeal vacated Judge Clark’s ruling, noting that whether the February 20 dismissal was an appropriate exercise of discretion was not before the court. Judge Colin’s order dismissing the charge against Vallejo was a final order terminating the trial court’s authority over her case. The prosecution had a clear remedy to address the trial court’s alleged bias or appearance of bias underlying the dismissal—an appeal under Penal Code 1238,(a)(8), but elected not to appeal. Judge Clark was without jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal. View "Vallejo v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Moniz managed a staffing firm's (Adecco’s) relationship with Google. Correa was assigned to work at Google. Moniz and Correa sued Adecco to recover civil penalties for alleged violations of the Labor Code. Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), an employee aggrieved by alleged Labor Code violations may act as an agent of the Labor Workforce and Development Agency (LWDA) to bring an action to recover civil penalties. If an aggrieved employee settles such an action, the court must review and approve the settlement; civil penalties are distributed 75 percent to the LWDA and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees.Moniz settled her case first. The court approved the settlement. Correa challenged the settlement process and approval, including the manner in which the court treated Correa's and LWDA's objections to the settlement, the standard used by the court to approve the settlement, numerous alleged legal deficiencies, and the trial court’s ruling denying her attorney fees and an incentive payment. The court of appeal reversed. While the court applied an appropriate standard of review by inquiring whether the settlement was “fair, adequate, and reasonable” as well as meaningful and consistent with the purposes of PAGA, it is not possible to infer from the record that the trial court assessed the fairness of the settlement’s allocation of civil penalties between the affected aggrieved employees or whether such allocation comports with PAGA. View "Moniz v. Adecco USA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased Berkeley property intending to demolish an existing structure and build a new residence. Richards, a licensed contractor, demolished the structure but did not build the new house. Plaintiffs sued Richards alleging breach of oral contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. Richards propounded requests for admission (RFAs) asking the plaintiffs to admit the parties did not enter into an oral contract and did not have a meeting of the minds. Plaintiffs denied the RFAs.The trial court denied Richards’s motion for summary judgment finding triable issues of material fact. After the close of evidence, Richards unsuccessfully moved for a directed verdict. The jury returned a defense verdict, concluding that Richards did not make a promise with clear and unambiguous terms. Richards moved for attorney fees and costs (Code of Civil Procedure 2033.420), arguing that the plaintiffs had no reasonable basis to deny the RFAs and “failed to realistically evaluate their claims and perform a reasonable investigation.” The court awarded Richards $239,170.86 in attorney fees and costs. The court of appeal affirmed. the trial court was well-positioned to evaluate the reasonableness issue as it presided over the case from start to finish. Neither the denial of summary judgment nor the denial of a directed verdict precluded the award. View "Spahn v. Richards" on Justia Law

The parties’ son was born in November 2018. Mother initiated a claim for child support. Testing established father’s paternity. and a stipulated judgment entered. In February 2019, father requested protective orders under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act and sought sole custody, submitting evidence of mother’s repeated online cyberstalking and harassment. Criminal charges were filed against mother. Much of the harassing behavior involves the child. In March 2019, the court awarded father sole custody of the child. Proceedings on the domestic violence restraining order were stayed pending resolution of felony charges against mother. In August 2020, the court denied mother’s request to modify custody and continued her supervised visitation.In connection with requests for modification of the custody and visitation orders, mother requested attorney fees. Following a hearing, the court denied mother’s request for fees, noting that father had not exhibited any conduct to warrant a sanction-based award. Other statutes apply only to married parties and were inapplicable; there has been no finding that father made false allegations of child abuse. Mother is not the prevailing party in an action to enforce an out-of-state custody order. The court of appeal reversed in part. Mother may be entitled to attorney fees under Family Code 7605, which requires a court to “ensure that each party has access to legal representation to preserve each party’s rights,” using the appropriate needs-based criteria. View "C.T. v. K.W." on Justia Law