Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around the defendant, Darryn Mayberry, who was found ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 by the trial court. Mayberry was initially charged with second-degree robbery and had previously suffered a juvenile adjudication and a serious felony conviction, both of which qualified as strike convictions under the Three Strikes law. He also served two separate prison terms. Mayberry pled nolo contendere to the robbery charge and admitted both strike priors and both prior prison term enhancements. The sentencing court struck one strike prior and imposed a doubled upper term of 10 years. The court also pronounced that it was exercising discretion and staying imposition of the two one-year prison priors, making the total term 10 years in the Department of Corrections.The trial court reasoned that the original sentence was "illegal" due to the section 667.5, former subdivision (b) enhancements being imposed but stayed, the sentence was not appealed, and the court therefore did not have the "ability" to "go back in time and do anything about those illegal sentences." Mayberry appealed from that ruling.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District disagreed with the trial court's interpretation of Penal Code section 1172.75. The appellate court concluded that section 1172.75 applies to prior prison term enhancements that have been imposed and stayed. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for the trial court to recall Mayberry's sentence and resentence him in compliance with section 1172.75. The appellate court found that the trial court had erred in staying the two prior prison term enhancements, and that section 1172.75 statutorily conferred jurisdiction on the trial court to resentence Mayberry. View "P. v. Mayberry" on Justia Law

The case involves Leah Lorch, who filed a lawsuit against Kia Motors America, Inc. The case was initially assigned to Judge Robert C. Longstreth for all purposes. However, due to Judge Longstreth's unavailability, the case was reassigned to Judge Timothy B. Taylor. Upon learning of this reassignment, Lorch's counsel filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Taylor under section 170.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asserting that Judge Taylor was prejudiced against Lorch. However, Judge Taylor denied the challenge, ruling it was untimely under the master calendar rule. The trial proceeded, resulting in a defense verdict in favor of Kia Motors.The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Lorch's peremptory challenge, ruling it was untimely under the master calendar rule. The court also refused to stay the trial, and Judge Taylor immediately began a two-day jury trial, which resulted in a defense verdict and judgment in favor of Kia Motors. Lorch then filed a petition within the statutory 10-day period, contending that her peremptory challenge was timely because it was filed before the trial started. She sought to vacate Judge Taylor’s orders denying her section 170.6 challenge and contended that all of Judge Taylor’s subsequent orders, as well as the judgment, were void for lack of jurisdiction.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, held that Lorch’s section 170.6 challenge was timely filed before the commencement of the trial and rejected Kia’s laches argument. The court also concluded that the Superior Court of San Diego County's local rule, which purports to provide any superior court judge with the power to act as a master calendar department for purposes of assigning cases for trial, is inconsistent with section 170.6 and case law interpreting the statute. The court granted the petition with directions to vacate the void orders and judgment entered by Judge Taylor after denying the peremptory challenge. View "Lorch v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Jake Johnson, an electrician, was injured while working on a construction project in a building owned by Property Reserve, Inc. (PRI) and managed by CBRE. Johnson was employed by PCF Electric, a subcontractor hired by Crew Builders, the general contractor for the project. Johnson filed a complaint against PRI, CBRE, Crew, and PCF for damages. PRI and CBRE moved for summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, which generally protects entities that hire independent contractors from liability for injuries sustained by the employees of the independent contractor. The trial court denied the motion, finding a triable issue of fact as to when PRI and CBRE hired Crew for the project.The trial court's decision was based on the execution date of the written contract between PRI, CBRE, and Crew. The court found that there was a triable issue of fact as to when PRI and CBRE hired Crew for the project. The court also granted Crew’s and PCF’s motions for summary judgment, concluding that the Privette doctrine barred Johnson’s claims against them.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One, disagreed with the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that a written contract is not required to invoke the Privette doctrine, and the undisputed facts established that PRI and CBRE delegated control over the tenant improvements to Crew prior to Johnson’s injury. The court also found that no exception to the Privette doctrine applied. The court concluded that no triable issues of material fact precluded summary judgment and granted PRI and CBRE’s requested relief. View "CBRE v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1319, AFL-CIO (Local 1319) and the City of Palo Alto (the city). In 2011, the city, facing a budget crisis, proposed an amendment to its city charter to alter a provision requiring certain labor disputes with its public safety unions to be submitted to binding interest arbitration. The city council adopted a resolution proposing the amendment, which was subsequently approved by city voters as "Measure D". However, the city did not consult with Local 1319 before proposing the amendment, which both the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and the appellate court later determined was a violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA).The trial court in the quo warranto proceedings agreed that the city violated the MMBA by enacting the resolution and submitting Measure D to the voters without prior good faith consultation with Local 1319. However, the trial court did not declare Measure D invalid. Instead, it issued a multi-step order that suspended the operation of the charter’s current dispute resolution procedures, required good faith consultation between the city and the public safety unions, and retained jurisdiction with the possibility of a future finding of invalidity of Measure D.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, reversed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by not invalidating Measure D after finding that the city's submission of Measure D to the voters violated the MMBA. The appellate court directed the trial court on remand to enter a new judgment ordering the city to restore the pre-amendment portion of the city charter's article V, invalidating Measure D, and providing any other appropriate relief consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "P. ex rel. Internat. Assn. of Firefighters v. City of Palo Alto" on Justia Law

The case involves Ling Mueller and Paul Mueller, a married couple who separated in 2017. During their marriage, they cultivated cannabis and buried the proceeds on their property. They initially attempted to use a collaborative law process to dissolve their marriage. They signed an agreement that outlined the collaborative process, including a confidentiality clause. However, the agreement also explicitly stated that it did not create any legally enforceable rights or obligations. During the second collaborative session, Ling became angry and left the meeting abruptly when asked about investments she had made using the proceeds from the couple's marijuana operation. She subsequently initiated divorce proceedings in family court.In the family court, Paul subpoenaed both parties' collaborative attorneys to testify about statements Ling made during the second collaborative session. Ling argued that the confidentiality clause in the agreement shielded her statements from disclosure. However, the court found the agreement, including the confidentiality clause, to be unenforceable. It also found that Ling had waived the confidentiality provision. As a result, it allowed the parties' collaborative attorneys to testify about the second collaborative session. The court found Ling to be not credible and ordered her to make a $161,077 equalizing payment.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Five, the sole issue on appeal was the admissibility of testimony about the second collaborative session. This depended on whether the confidentiality clause was enforceable despite the agreement's multiple statements that it created no enforceable rights or obligations. The court found that the agreement unequivocally stated that it did not give either party enforceable legal rights. Therefore, the court affirmed the family court's decision that the confidentiality clause was unenforceable. View "Mueller v. Mueller" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and 21st Century Insurance Company and other insurance companies (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs, who paid policyholders for losses resulting from a fire known as the Creek Fire, sued SCE under a subrogation theory to recover their payments. They alleged that an arc from SCE's electric powerlines caused the fire. During discovery, SCE withheld certain documents, asserting they were generated during an attorney-led internal investigation into the cause of the fire and were protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. The plaintiffs moved to compel the production of these documents, arguing that SCE's primary reason for conducting the investigation was to comply with state law requiring it to publicly report any involvement it had in causing the fire. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and compelled the production of the documents.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division One reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court's order improperly invaded the protection afforded by the attorney work product doctrine. Even where the dominant purpose of an attorney-directed internal investigation is to comply with a client's public reporting requirement, attorney work product generated in connection with gathering facts to assist counsel in advising the client on how to comply with that statutory or regulatory reporting requirement remains protected. As the plaintiffs did not show grounds for the production of their adversary's work product, the trial court erred in compelling its production. The court did not address whether the order also violated the attorney-client privilege. The court granted SCE's petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order and issue a new order denying the plaintiffs' motion to compel. View "Southern California Edison Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 2013, a minor identified as A.M. was tried as an adult and convicted for first-degree murder of a rival gang member, which he committed at the age of 14. He was sentenced to 26 years to life in prison. In 2021, the superior court conditionally reversed the judgment and ordered a transfer hearing under Proposition 57, which prohibits trying a minor as an adult without a judicial determination of their fitness for juvenile court. 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. appealed, arguing that his case should not have been transferred because he was 14 years old when he committed his crime. He also contended that Assembly Bill 333, which amended various provisions of Penal section 186.22, required striking the gang-murder special circumstance. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District agreed with both of A.M.’s contentions.The court held that Senate Bill 1391, which amended Proposition 57 to prohibit the transfer of 14- and 15-year-olds to adult criminal court, applied to A.M.'s case. The court reasoned that when the superior court conditionally reversed A.M.'s conviction and sentence, his case became nonfinal, and thus, Senate Bill 1391 applied. The court also held that Assembly Bill 333 applied retroactively to A.M.'s case, requiring the vacating of the jury's gang-murder special circumstance finding. The court reversed the order granting the district attorney’s motion to transfer A.M.’s case to criminal court, vacated the true finding on the gang-murder special circumstance, and struck the requirement for A.M. to register as a gang offender. The case was remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings. View "In re A.M." on Justia Law

The case involves a developmentally disabled woman, referred to as A.L., who was sexually assaulted by an employee of a transportation service. The transportation service was contracted by Harbor Developmental Disabilities Foundation, a regional center under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. The regional center's role is to assess the needs of developmentally disabled individuals and contract with service providers to meet those needs. A.L. sued the employee, the transportation service, and the regional center, arguing that the regional center had a duty to protect her from sexual assault by the transportation service's employees.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the regional center, concluding that the regional center did not have a duty to protect A.L. from sexual assault by the transportation service's employees unless the regional center had actual knowledge of the employee's propensity to engage in such conduct. The trial court's decision was based on the fact that the regional center had no such knowledge in this case.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the regional center had a duty to protect A.L. from sexual assault by the transportation service's employees only if the regional center had actual knowledge of the employee's propensity to engage in such conduct. The court concluded that imposing a broader duty on the regional center would effectively convert regional centers into insurers of all harm to consumers, which could potentially shut down these centers and deny essential services to the entire population of developmentally disabled persons. View "A.L. v. Harbor Developmental Disabilities Foundation" on Justia Law

Diana Contreras Chagolla, under the influence of prescription painkillers, led California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers on a high-speed chase. The chase ended when Chagolla crashed her vehicle into a guardrail, blocking two lanes of traffic. Despite repeated orders from the CHP officers, Chagolla did not exit her vehicle for about 45 minutes. During this time, a four-vehicle collision occurred about half a mile to a mile away from Chagolla’s vehicle, resulting in the death of a driver. Chagolla was charged with murder and unlawfully causing death to a person while driving a motor vehicle in attempting to elude a peace officer, among other crimes.The trial court granted Chagolla's motion to set aside the information for the charges of murder and unlawfully causing death to a person while driving a motor vehicle in attempting to elude a peace officer. The People then filed a petition for mandate, arguing that the superior court erred in setting aside these charges. They requested the court to vacate its order and reinstate the charges.The Court of Appeal declined to order the requested relief. The court found that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing did not establish that Chagolla intentionally remained in her car after it crashed and knew that remaining in the vehicle would endanger the life of another. Without establishing these fundamental facts, the People could not show Chagolla’s act of remaining in her car proximately caused the victim’s death. Therefore, the court denied the People's request for relief. View "People v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Arasely Soto, a public school teacher, was injured during a routine medical procedure and had to retire. She sued her medical providers for malpractice and also sought disability retirement benefits from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS). She and her husband, Raul Soto, settled with several of the medical malpractice defendants. CalSTRS brought an action against the Sotos, seeking to enforce its right to subrogation or reimbursement from the Sotos' settlement with the malpractice defendants.The trial court granted CalSTRS’s motion for summary adjudication on its declaratory relief cause of action and denied the Sotos’ motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that CalSTRS was entitled to seek reimbursement from the Sotos and rejected the Sotos’ defense that Civil Code section 3333.1 bars any subrogation claim that CalSTRS would have asserted against the malpractice defendants. The Sotos filed a petition for writ of mandate asking the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two to vacate the trial court’s orders.The appellate court agreed with CalSTRS’s argument that it has a statutory reimbursement claim against the Sotos, and the evidence in this case does not support application of section 3333.1 to bar CalSTRS’s claim. The court denied the Sotos' petition for writ of mandate. View "Soto v. Superior Court" on Justia Law