Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A licensed physician pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of California’s Business and Professions Code section 650, which prohibits receiving compensation for patient referrals. As part of a plea agreement, he paid restitution and other fees, and additional charges were dismissed. Before completing his probation, he successfully moved to have the case dismissed under Penal Code section 1385, which allows for dismissal in the interest of justice.Following this, the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) suspended him from participating in California’s workers’ compensation system, citing Labor Code section 139.21. This statute mandates suspension of any provider convicted of certain crimes related to fraud or abuse of the workers’ compensation system. The physician challenged the suspension in an administrative hearing, arguing that the dismissal of his case meant he was no longer “convicted” under the statute. The administrative law judge rejected this argument and upheld the suspension. The physician then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which denied the petition, finding that the statutory definition of “convicted” included a guilty plea accepted by a court, regardless of later dismissal.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the matter de novo. The court held that under the plain language of Labor Code section 139.21, a person is considered “convicted” if a guilty plea has been accepted by a court, with no exception for cases later dismissed under Penal Code section 1385. The court found that the physician’s suspension was required by law and affirmed the judgment of the superior court. The DIR was awarded costs on appeal. View "Ahn v. Parisotto" on Justia Law

In 1996, the defendant broke into a home, raped a woman at knifepoint, and carried a child at knifepoint while stealing a firearm and ammunition. He was charged with multiple offenses, including kidnapping to commit robbery and, later, a one-strike rape allegation. After a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury and the emergence of DNA evidence linking him to the crime, the defendant pled guilty in 1998 to several charges under a plea agreement. The plea resulted in the dismissal of the rape charge and the one-strike allegation, and the kidnapping charge was amended. He was sentenced to a determinate prison term, which was later reduced.In 2024, the defendant, who is ethnically Samoan, filed a motion in the Superior Court of Riverside County seeking discovery under the Racial Justice Act (RJA). He argued that the addition of the one-strike allegation before trial was racially motivated, citing a different case involving a white defendant who was not similarly charged. He requested records of comparable cases, including defendants’ races and charges. The People opposed, arguing that the plea negotiations were driven by DNA evidence, not the added charge, and that the comparison case was not analogous. The trial court granted the discovery motion but limited the scope of the records to be produced.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case on a petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court held that the defendant failed to establish good cause for discovery under the RJA because his factual scenario was not plausible in light of the record, the comparison case did not support an inference of racial disparity, and statewide incarceration statistics did not provide specific facts of misconduct in his case. The court granted the writ, directing the trial court to vacate its order granting discovery and to deny the motion. View "People v. Superior Ct. (Lalo)" on Justia Law

Several public utility companies challenged the property tax rates imposed by a California county, arguing that the “debt service component” of the county’s property tax rate for utility property was higher than the average rate for non-utility (common) property. The utilities claimed this violated article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution, which states that utility property “shall be subject to taxation to the same extent and in the same manner as other property.” The utilities sought a partial refund of property taxes for several fiscal years, asserting that the constitutional provision required rate equality between utility and common property.The Superior Court of Riverside County allowed two local water districts to intervene, as they relied on property tax revenue for bond payments. The county demurred, relying on a recent decision from the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, which had rejected a similar claim by utilities in another county. The utilities conceded that this precedent was binding on the trial court but preserved their arguments for appeal. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It considered the text, structure, and legislative history of article XIII, section 19, as well as recent appellate decisions from other districts. The court held that the constitutional provision does not require that utility and common property be taxed at the same rates. Instead, it authorizes local ad valorem taxation of utility property, replacing the prior system of state-level in-lieu taxation, but does not impose a rate limitation. The court also found that prior California Supreme Court precedent did not mandate rate equality. The judgment dismissing the utilities’ lawsuit was affirmed. View "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

An employee at a hospital operated by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA Health) photographed confidential patient information and posted it to his personal Instagram account, despite having received training and signing agreements to protect patient privacy. Although the employee redacted some information, personal details of ten patients remained visible. The hospital responded by placing the employee on administrative leave, ultimately terminating him, notifying affected patients, and reiterating privacy policies to staff. No patients reported adverse consequences from the disclosure.The California Department of Public Health investigated and imposed a $75,000 penalty on the hospital, finding a violation of Health and Safety Code section 1280.15, which requires health facilities to prevent unauthorized disclosure of patient medical information. An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the Department’s finding and penalty, interpreting section 1280.15 as imposing strict liability for any unauthorized disclosure, regardless of whether the hospital had implemented appropriate safeguards. The ALJ noted that the Department did not find a violation of section 1280.18, which requires reasonable safeguards, but still held the hospital responsible. The Department adopted the ALJ’s decision.The Regents of the University of California challenged the decision in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, seeking a writ of administrative mandate and declaratory relief. The trial court ruled in favor of the hospital, holding that a violation of section 1280.15 cannot occur without a concurrent violation of section 1280.18, thus importing a reasonableness standard into section 1280.15. The court ordered the Department to vacate its decision and remanded the matter.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that section 1280.15 is not a strict liability statute; liability requires a failure to implement reasonable safeguards as mandated by section 1280.18. The hospital was not liable absent proof of such a failure. View "Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. State Dept. of Public Health" on Justia Law

Angel Lynn Realty, Inc. (ALR) entered into a partnership agreement with Real Estate Portfolio Management, LLC (REPM) to purchase, rehabilitate, and sell properties, splitting profits equally. ALR alleged that REPM breached the agreement by failing to pay over $800,000 in profits and also breached its fiduciary duties. ALR further claimed that Steve George, REPM’s sole member, was the alter ego of REPM. After REPM failed to pay the judgment, ALR conducted a debtor’s examination and asserted that postjudgment actions by George fraudulently drained REPM’s assets to avoid payment.The Superior Court of Sacramento County held a bench trial and found in favor of ALR on the breach of partnership and fiduciary duty claims, awarding nearly $1 million in damages and interest against REPM. However, the court found that ALR had not proven George was REPM’s alter ego and entered judgment accordingly. When ALR later moved to amend the judgment to add George as a judgment debtor based on alleged postjudgment fraudulent conduct, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the alter ego issue since it had already been decided.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred by applying collateral estoppel without considering whether new facts or changed circumstances had arisen since the prior decision. The appellate court clarified that collateral estoppel does not bar reconsideration of an issue if material facts have changed after the original judgment. The order denying ALR’s motion to amend the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to determine whether postjudgment events warrant a different outcome on the alter ego issue. View "Angel Lynn Realty, Inc. v. George" on Justia Law

A married couple with a young child became involved in a physical altercation at their home, during which the father, while intoxicated, struck the mother multiple times. During the incident, the mother was holding their infant son, and the father accidentally hit the child in the face, though the child was not injured. The mother sustained injuries, including a lacerated lip and a cut foot. The police responded, and the father was arrested for domestic violence and child endangerment. Both parents later gave conflicting accounts to social workers, with the mother initially reporting prior incidents of domestic violence, including while she was pregnant or breastfeeding, but later recanting some statements. The father admitted to slapping the mother but denied hitting the child or prior violence.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), alleging risk of harm to the child due to domestic violence and the father’s substance abuse. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County detained the child from the father, released him to the mother, and ordered services for both parents. At the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the court found the mother’s initial statements credible, sustained the domestic violence and substance abuse allegations, declared the child a dependent, and removed him from the father’s custody.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional findings under both subdivisions (a) and (b) based on the parents’ history of domestic violence in the child’s presence, including the incident where the father accidentally struck the child. The court also found substantial evidence supported the removal order, given the ongoing risk and the parents’ lack of accountability. The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s findings and orders. View "In re Miguel J." on Justia Law

A company that sells jet fuel paid sales tax on all of its jet-fuel sales and later sought a refund, arguing that it should have been taxed on only 20 percent of those sales. The company’s position was based on a 1971 legislative amendment that partially exempted jet-fuel sales from local sales tax, and it contended that a 1991 legislative change eliminating this exemption was invalid because it was not approved by local voters as required by Proposition 62, which mandates voter approval for new or increased local taxes. The relevant counties had adopted ordinances in 1956 that imposed sales tax on all tangible personal property and included provisions automatically incorporating future amendments to the state’s sales tax laws, provided they were not inconsistent with the local ordinances.The Superior Court of Fresno County ruled in favor of the company, finding that the counties’ ordinances did not automatically incorporate the 1991 legislative change eliminating the jet-fuel exemption. The court concluded that the counties failed to pass new local ordinances implementing the change and that the full taxation of jet fuel without voter approval violated Proposition 62. The court ordered a refund and granted declaratory relief, allowing the company to pay tax only on 20 percent of future jet-fuel sales.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the counties’ ordinances did automatically and lawfully incorporate the 1991 legislative elimination of the jet-fuel sales exemption. The court further held that Proposition 62 did not apply because the elimination of a tax exemption is not itself the imposition of a new tax; rather, it is a revision to an exemption within an existing, all-encompassing tax. Therefore, voter approval was not required for the change, and the company was not entitled to a refund. View "Southwest Jet Fuel Co. v. Dept. of Tax and Fee Administration" on Justia Law

An adolescent female, who was continuously enrolled as a dependent under her mother’s Kaiser health care plans from 2005 to 2023, received gender-affirming medical care between the ages of 13 and 17. After experiencing negative outcomes and later detransitioning, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, The Permanente Medical Group, and several individual providers. The claims alleged that the care provided was not medically justified, that risks were not adequately disclosed, and that the providers failed to meet the standard of care in both treatment and informed consent.The Superior Court of San Joaquin County reviewed Kaiser’s petition to compel arbitration, which was based on arbitration provisions in the health plan documents. Kaiser argued that the plaintiff, as a dependent, was bound by arbitration agreements incorporated in the evidence of coverage and benefits booklets for both the union-based and self-funded plans. The trial court found that Kaiser failed to establish the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate, noting that the relevant documents referenced in the enrollment forms were not provided, and there was no evidence of the plaintiff or her mother expressly agreeing to the specific arbitration provisions Kaiser sought to enforce. The court denied the petition to compel arbitration and later denied Kaiser’s motion for reconsideration.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that Kaiser did not meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a valid and binding arbitration agreement covering the controversy. The court emphasized that mere enrollment and general references to arbitration were insufficient; the precise arbitration provision must be clearly incorporated and agreed to. The order denying the petition to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Brockman v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who participated in a home invasion robbery during which he and several accomplices entered a residence, brandished firearms, assaulted the inhabitants, and stole valuables. During their escape, a gun battle erupted between the intruders and a neighbor, resulting in the death of one of the defendant’s accomplices. The identity of the shooter who killed the accomplice was never determined. The defendant was later identified by a victim and arrested after driving the wounded accomplice to the hospital.Following a preliminary hearing in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the magistrate found sufficient evidence to hold the defendant to answer for murder under a provocative act theory, as well as for other related charges. The defendant subsequently pleaded no contest to first degree murder, and the court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison. In 2022, the defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that changes in the law rendered him ineligible for a murder conviction under the theory applied in his case. The superior court issued an order to show cause and held an evidentiary hearing, ultimately denying the petition after finding the defendant was convicted under a still-valid provocative act murder theory.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed whether the defendant made a prima facie case for resentencing relief. The court held that because the defendant was convicted after the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Concha, which requires a personal finding of malice for provocative act murder, and because this theory remains valid under current law, the defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed the superior court’s denial of the resentencing petition. View "People v. Venancio" on Justia Law

After the birth of A.M., the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services became involved due to concerns about the mother’s substance abuse and the father’s alleged failure to protect A.M. from the mother. The juvenile court initially placed A.M. with her father, who lived with his sister Martha and other family members, and later awarded him sole physical custody. Years later, the father was incarcerated after police found a gun and pills in his car. Before going to prison, he arranged for Martha to care for A.M., providing her with necessary documents and a notarized letter for temporary custody. However, when the mother learned of the father’s incarceration, she refused to return A.M. to Martha after a visit. The mother’s care was found to be inadequate, with evidence of substance abuse, neglect, and unsafe living conditions, leading to A.M. being placed back with Martha.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County detained A.M. from both parents, citing concerns about the father’s criminal history and the mother’s conduct. The court found that the father’s incarceration and criminal actions impaired his ability to parent and protect A.M., and removed A.M. from both parents under various provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Both A.M.’s counsel and the father’s counsel argued that the father had made an appropriate care plan, but the court disagreed and ordered removal.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. It held that a juvenile court may not remove a child from an incarcerated parent solely due to incarceration if the parent has made a suitable plan for the child’s care. The court found no substantial evidence that the father’s plan posed a risk to A.M. and reversed the portion of the order removing A.M. from her father, remanding for further proceedings as appropriate. View "In re A.M." on Justia Law