Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves Cailin Hardell, who sued Adrian Vanzyl, Waleed Mohsen, and Blumberg Capital for sexual assault and battery, sexual harassment, and retaliation, among other claims, related to an incident in Miami, Florida in March 2022. Vanzyl, a non-resident defendant, moved to quash service of summons of the first amended complaint, arguing that he had insufficient contacts with California for the trial court to exercise either specific or general personal jurisdiction over him. The trial court agreed and also denied Hardell’s request to conduct jurisdictional discovery.The trial court's decision was based on its finding that Vanzyl was not domiciled or continuously and systematically present in California in March 2022, and that Vanzyl had insufficient suit-related contacts with California. Hardell appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court erred in its findings and that it should have granted her request for jurisdictional discovery.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Four concluded that the connection between Hardell’s claims against Vanzyl and his contacts with California was too attenuated to support specific jurisdiction. However, it also concluded that the trial court erred in failing to consider whether it could exercise general jurisdiction over Vanzyl notwithstanding its finding that he was not domiciled in California in March 2022, and that it abused its discretion in denying Hardell’s request for discovery. The case was remanded, with Hardell being allowed to conduct limited discovery addressing whether the trial court may exercise general jurisdiction over Vanzyl. View "Hardell v. Vanzyl" on Justia Law

Peter J. Meno was convicted of two counts of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated with ordinary negligence, one count of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) causing bodily injury, and one count of driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more causing injury. The jury also found that Meno inflicted great bodily injury upon two separate victims. The trial court found that the convictions on the DUI counts were necessarily included offenses of the manslaughter counts. However, due to the associated enhancements, the potential sentence for the DUI counts was greater than that for the manslaughter counts. The court decided to dismiss the manslaughter counts and sentenced Meno to a combined term of eight years in prison.The Superior Court of San Diego County had previously heard the case. The trial court found that the DUI counts were necessarily included offenses of the manslaughter counts. However, due to the associated enhancements, the potential sentence for the DUI counts was greater than that for the manslaughter counts. The court decided to dismiss the manslaughter counts and sentenced Meno to a combined term of eight years in prison.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not err by dismissing the manslaughter counts and sentencing Meno on the DUI counts. The court also held that the trial court did not err by including additional terms for two great bodily injury enhancements on one of the DUI counts. The court affirmed the judgment and directed the trial court to prepare a new abstract of judgment to reflect its oral pronouncement of judgment. View "People v. Meno" on Justia Law

A 13-year-old student, K.M., was found in possession of a folding knife on school grounds. The incident occurred when a campus supervisor took K.M. to the principal's office after a report of him vaping in the school bathroom. K.M. consented to a search of his backpack, which revealed two vape pens and a folding knife with two rusted blades. Later, the principal received a report that K.M. had threatened another student with the knife earlier in the day. Consequently, a police officer issued K.M. a citation for brandishing a knife and for possession of a knife on school grounds.The prosecution filed a wardship petition alleging that K.M. brought a weapon onto school property and brandished the knife. The juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional hearing, where the principal and the police officer testified. The court found K.M. guilty of the first count, designating the offense a felony, and dismissed the second count due to insufficient evidence. The court did not check the box indicating that it had found clear proof that K.M. knew his action was wrong. At a subsequent dispositional hearing, K.M.'s counsel argued that K.M. did not know he was breaking any rules when he had the knife at school because his father told him the knife was legal. The court declared K.M. a ward of the court and placed him on probation for six months.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three, K.M. argued that the prosecution did not prove, and the evidence does not support an implied finding, that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the incident. The court agreed with K.M., stating that there was no clear and convincing evidence that K.M. understood the wrongfulness of possessing a knife on school grounds. The court found insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's implied finding that K.M. understood the wrongfulness of bringing a knife onto school property at the time of the incident. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "In re K.M." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between neighbors over alleged violations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) related to landscaping and hedges. The plaintiffs, Thomas and Lisa Schwartz, claimed that their neighbors, Charles and Katyna Cohen, maintained landscaping and hedges on their property in violation of certain provisions of the LAMC. The Schwartzes sought redress for these alleged violations based on section 36900, subdivision (a) of the California Government Code, which states that a violation of a city ordinance may be redressed by civil action. The Schwartzes relied on a prior court decision, Riley v. Hilton Hotels Corp., which interpreted this provision as allowing any private citizen to sue to redress violations of municipal ordinances.The trial court overruled the Cohens' demurrer to the second and third causes of action, which were based on the alleged LAMC violations. The court applied the Riley decision and concluded that the Schwartzes could assert private causes of action for violations of the LAMC. The Cohens petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, arguing that the Riley decision was wrongly decided and that section 36900, subdivision (a) does not create a private right of action.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Four agreed with the Cohens. The court found that the language of section 36900, subdivision (a) is ambiguous and that its legislative history shows that the Legislature did not intend to afford members of the public the right to bring suit to redress violations of local ordinances. The court concluded that the trial court erred by overruling the Cohens' demurrer to the second and third causes of action. The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the trial court to vacate the portion of its order overruling the Cohens' demurrer to these causes of action and to enter an order sustaining their demurrer without leave to amend. The court also overruled the Riley decision to the extent that it recognized a private right of action under section 36900, subdivision (a). View "Cohen v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over a public contract for services to be rendered to the state. The plaintiffs, Talley Amusements, Inc. and others, alleged that the 32nd District Agricultural Association and others violated the Public Contract Code section 10339 when they solicited proposals for a master carnival operator contract for the county fair. The plaintiffs claimed that the request for proposal (RFP) was written in such a way that only one carnival operator in the United States could qualify, thereby limiting the bidding process.The Superior Court of Orange County initially reviewed the case. The court found that section 10339, which prohibits a state agency from drafting an RFP in a way that directly or indirectly limits bidding to any one bidder, did not apply to this particular contract. As a result, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction under section 10421, which allows a court to issue a temporary injunction preventing further dealings on a public contract awarded in violation of section 10339.The case was then brought before the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three. The main issue on appeal was whether the competitive bidding requirements of section 10339 apply to a district agricultural association’s RFP on a master carnival contract. After reviewing the matter de novo, the court held that section 10339 did not apply to the contract at issue because it was not a contract for services to be rendered to the state. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s order denying injunctive relief under section 10421. View "Talley Amusements v. The 32nd District Agricultural Association" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an employment dispute between Nelida Soltero and Precise Distribution, Inc. Soltero, who was placed at Precise Distribution by a temporary staffing agency, Real Time Staffing Services, filed a class action complaint against Precise Distribution for alleged failure to provide required meal periods and rest breaks to employees, among other claims. Precise Distribution sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement between Soltero and Real Time. However, Real Time was not a party to the lawsuit.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County denied Precise Distribution's motion to compel arbitration. Precise Distribution argued that it should be able to compel arbitration under the agreement between Soltero and Real Time, despite not being a party to it, based on theories of equitable estoppel, third-party beneficiary, or agency.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that Precise Distribution was not a party to the arbitration agreement between Soltero and Real Time and could not compel arbitration based on the theories it proposed. The court found that Soltero's claims against Precise Distribution were not dependent upon or founded in the underlying contractual obligations of the agreement containing the arbitration clause. Furthermore, Precise Distribution was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement, and there was no evidence of an agency relationship between Precise Distribution and Real Time. Therefore, the court affirmed the order denying Precise Distribution's motion to compel arbitration. View "Soltero v. Precise Distribution" on Justia Law

The case involves Edelmira Ibarra, a nonexempt employee who worked for Chuy & Sons Labor, Inc., Infinite Herbs, LLC, Baby Root Farms, and G.J. Farms, Inc. (collectively Defendants) from January to July 2021. Ibarra alleged that the Defendants violated several provisions of the Labor Code, including failing to maintain adequate staffing levels, giving too much work to employees, resulting in missed meal and rest periods without premium pay, and failing to reimburse employees for safety gloves and protective masks. Ibarra sent a prelitigation notice to the Defendants and the Labor Workforce and Development Agency (LWDA) in September 2021, alleging these violations on behalf of herself and all other current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendants in the State of California during the last four years.The trial court granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Ibarra's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action for failure to comply with PAGA's prefiling notice requirements. The court found Ibarra's prelitigation notice deficient because it did not adequately describe "aggrieved employees."The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the prelitigation notice need not further define "aggrieved employees" as long as it includes "the facts and theories" to support the alleged Labor Code violations and nonfrivolous allegations that other aggrieved employees exist. The court found that Ibarra's prelitigation notice met these requirements and was therefore sufficient. The court concluded that the trial court erred in finding the prelitigation notice deficient and dismissed Ibarra's PAGA action. The judgment was reversed, and Ibarra was allowed to recover costs on appeal. View "Ibarra v. Chuy & Sons Labor, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a minor, A.M., who was convicted as an adult for a murder committed when he was 14 years old. A.M. was a member of a local gang and was convicted of first-degree murder for killing a rival gang member, S.S. The jury found that A.M. had used a deadly weapon and committed the crime for the benefit of his gang. He was sentenced to 26 years to life in state prison.Years later, the superior court conditionally reversed the judgment and ordered a transfer hearing pursuant to Proposition 57, which prohibits trying a minor as an adult without a judicial determination of their fitness for juvenile court law. The juvenile court conducted the hearing, granted the district attorney’s motion to transfer A.M.’s case to criminal court, and reinstated the judgment. A.M. contended that his case should not have been transferred because he was 14 years old when he committed his crime.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, found that A.M.'s case was nonfinal when the superior court conditionally reversed the judgment. Therefore, Proposition 57 and Senate Bill 1391, which bars a juvenile court from transferring a 14- or 15-year-old to adult criminal court, applied. The court also agreed with A.M.'s contention that Assembly Bill 333 required striking the gang-murder special circumstance. The court reversed the order granting the district attorney’s motion to transfer A.M.’s case to criminal court and vacated the true finding on the gang-murder special circumstance. The court remanded the matter to the juvenile court with directions to enter a new order denying the district attorney’s motion and to hold a dispositional hearing treating A.M.’s murder conviction as a juvenile adjudication. View "In re A.M." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Maria Chavez, the widow of Leodegario Chavez Alvarado, who was employed by Alco Harvesting, LLC as a foreman and bus driver. Alco provided housing for Alvarado and other workers at the Hotel Santa Maria, where a COVID-19 outbreak occurred. Chavez alleged that Alco was aware of the outbreak but failed to report it to the health department, notify its employees, or implement adequate safety measures. Alvarado contracted COVID-19 and died from complications related to the disease. Chavez claimed that Alco's concealment of the outbreak and the nature of Alvarado's illness resulted in the aggravation of his condition, leading to his death.The trial court sustained Alco's demurrer to Chavez's second amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to Chavez's appeal. The trial court found that Chavez failed to plead sufficient facts under the fraudulent concealment exception to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six reviewed the case. The court construed the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend as a final judgment. The court found that Chavez's second amended complaint sufficiently pleaded all elements of the fraudulent concealment exception to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. The court held that Alco knew that Alvarado had contracted COVID-19 from his employment and concealed that knowledge from him, thereby aggravating his illness. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the order granting Alco's demurrer and enter a new order overruling that demurrer. View "Chavez v. Alco Harvesting, LLC" on Justia Law

The Regents of the University of California (Regents) approved the construction of a new hospital at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Parnassus Heights campus. The proposed hospital was alleged to exceed local building height and bulk restrictions. The Parnassus Neighborhood Coalition (the Coalition), a group of property owners residing near the proposed hospital, sued to halt the construction, claiming it was a “threatened nuisance per se.” The Regents argued that as a state entity, they were immune from complying with local building and zoning regulations when engaging in a governmental activity such as constructing university buildings.The trial court disagreed with the Regents, concluding that their immunity depended on whether the proposed construction constituted a governmental or proprietary activity, a question of fact that could not be resolved on a demurrer. The Regents petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s order.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three reviewed the case. The court concluded that the proposed hospital would facilitate the provision of clinical services, thereby advancing UCSF’s academic mission and the Regents’ educational purpose, which is a governmental activity. The court held that the Regents are exempt from the local regulations at issue, and the demurrer should have been sustained. The court issued the writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the Regents’ demurrer and to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer. View "The Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court" on Justia Law