Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case is an appeal from a decision of the Superior Court of Yolo County, California. The defendant, Silverio Saldana, was found guilty of possession for sale of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison as a three-strikes offender. The court also imposed and stayed four prior prison term enhancements. Nearly a decade later, Saldana's defense counsel moved to strike the four prior prison term enhancements under Penal Code section 1172.75 and requested a full resentencing under that statute. The trial court struck the previously stayed enhancements but declined to conduct a full resentencing because of the enhancements' status as stayed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, held that the defendant was entitled to full resentencing. The court noted that even though the enhancements were stayed, they were part of the sentence and could potentially increase the sentence under certain circumstances. Therefore, striking the enhancements provided some relief to the defendant by eliminating that potential. The court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with section 1172.75 and all current sentencing statutes that apply to the defendant. View "P. v. Saldana" on Justia Law

In this case, the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District reversed the trial court's denial of anti-SLAPP motions filed by Tara Crawford, a trustee, and her lawyer, Benjamin Graves. The case arose from a dispute over an easement connected to a piece of property sold by Alan Patterson to Steven McArthur, who took title in the name of Green Tree Headlands LLC. After Patterson's death, Crawford, as trustee of Patterson's trust, managed the property and argued that the easement had expired based on the terms of the Declaration of Restrictions. McArthur disagreed, asserting that the easement remained in existence. Crawford filed a lawsuit against McArthur, which she later voluntarily dismissed. McArthur then filed a malicious prosecution action against Crawford and Graves. Crawford and Graves filed anti-SLAPP motions, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the appellate court found that Crawford had a reasonable basis to sue McArthur, as the Declaration of Restrictions, by itself, gave Crawford a factual basis to argue that the easement was temporarily limited and had expired. Therefore, the court held that the trial court erred in denying the anti-SLAPP motions and reversed its decision. View "Green Tree Headlands LLC v. Crawford" on Justia Law

In this case from the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three, the plaintiff, Sally Ann Haydon, a former resident of Elegance at Dublin, a residential care facility for the elderly, sued the facility and its affiliated entities for elder abuse and other claims. The defendants attempted to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the resident agreement that Haydon had signed. The trial court denied the motion, finding the arbitration agreement to be unconscionable. The defendants appealed this decision.Haydon had lived at the facility for a few days and has dementia. The agreement she signed, which contained the arbitration clause, was over 40 pages long, and the arbitration clause was one of over 20 "miscellaneous" provisions at the end of the document. Haydon claimed she signed the agreement under duress and without understanding its contents.On appeal, the court found that there was a high degree of both procedural and substantive unconscionability in the arbitration clause, and therefore affirmed the trial court's decision not to enforce it. The court found procedural unconscionability in the circumstances of the agreement's formation, considering the pressure Haydon was under to sign the agreement, the lack of explanation about the arbitration clause, and the confusing presentation of the clause. The court found substantive unconscionability in the confidentiality provision of the arbitration agreement, the limitations on discovery under the applicable arbitration rules, and the requirement that parties bear their own costs and fees in connection with the arbitration. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever the unconscionable provisions from the arbitration clause, given the extent of the unconscionability. View "Haydon v. Elegance at Dublin" on Justia Law

In this case, Crista Miller tripped on a vertical misalignment of less than one inch between a metal plate covering an underground utility vault, owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and the surrounding sidewalk adjacent to a property owned by Hip Sen Benevolent Association (Hip Sen), resulting in an injury to her ankle. Miller filed a lawsuit against both PG&E and Hip Sen, alleging general negligence and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the lawsuit was barred by the trivial defect doctrine.Miller appealed, but the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's ruling. The appellate court concluded that the vertical misalignment was a trivial defect as a matter of law. The court stated that to recover damages for negligence or premises liability, Miller had to prove that the defendants breached a legal duty to either repair or warn about the existence of the misalignment. However, it is well-established law that landowners are not liable for damages caused by minor, trivial, or insignificant defects in property. Even considering the steepness of the sidewalk, the weather conditions, the time of the incident, and the crowded nature of the street, the court found that these factors did not render the misalignment a dangerous condition. The court also found that the city's guidelines and repair notices did not impose a legal duty to repair such minor defects.Miller also argued that the city's repair notices to PG&E and Hip Sen for their violations of the city's Guidelines rendered them liable under a theory of negligence per se. However, the appellate court found this argument to be forfeited as Miller did not raise this issue in the trial court and only presented it for the first time in her appellate reply brief.Therefore, the appellate court concluded that no reasonable trier of fact could find the trivial sidewalk defect posed a substantial risk of injury to a foreseeable pedestrian exercising due care and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Miller v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law

In a criminal case in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, the defendant, Terrell Trammel, was convicted of multiple charges arising from his violent relationship with his former girlfriend, M.T. Trammel first appealed his aggregate 12-year prison term sentence, arguing that the trial court erroneously failed to stay the punishment for two convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 654. The appellate court agreed and remanded the case for a full resentencing. On remand, the trial court corrected its errors and resentenced Trammel to a total prison term of 12 years, four months.Trammel then filed a second appeal arguing that his new sentence violated the prohibition against double jeopardy in the California Constitution. The appellate court agreed with Trammel, finding that the addition of four months to his sentence upon resentencing violated the prohibition against double jeopardy because the errors in his original sentence were not the result of "unauthorized leniency" that might have warranted a harsher sentence under the exception outlined in People v. Serrato. The court also found that the amended abstract of judgment did not accurately reflect Trammel's total custody credits at the time of resentencing.The court remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to modify the sentence and impose a total aggregate sentence of 11 years, four months, and to determine Trammel's actual total custody credits as of the time of his resentencing. The court also instructed the trial court to order the clerk of the superior court to prepare a second amended abstract of judgment reflecting these changes. View "P. v. Trammel" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, Jose Diaz, who was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting a street vendor, William Garcia, to death over a dispute about selling on someone else's turf. Diaz appealed his conviction, arguing that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and that the prosecutor committed misconduct in his closing argument. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District concluded that police had ample probable cause to arrest Diaz, noting that Diaz, with his distinctive neck tattoo, was observed in an incriminating location at an incriminating time. The court also found no prosecutorial misconduct. However, Diaz successfully raised issues about his sentence. The court decided to remand the case for the trial court to consider whether the recent ruling in People v. Tirado and Senate Bill No. 81 have any bearing on Diaz’s sentence. The court otherwise affirmed Diaz's conviction. View "P. v. Diaz" on Justia Law

The Zurich American Insurance Company sought a writ of mandate against the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), in the Court of Appeal of the State of California. The issue at hand involved the interpretation of Labor Code section 5909, which states that if the WCAB does not act on a party’s petition for reconsideration of a decision by the workers’ compensation judge within 60 days, the petition is “deemed to have been denied.” CIGA filed a petition for reconsideration more than nine months past the filing date. The WCAB justified its late decision on the basis of an “administrative irregularity” that delayed CIGA’s petition. Zurich argued that the petition had already been denied by operation of law under section 5909. The Court of Appeal agreed with Zurich and held that the language and purpose of section 5909 showed a clear legislative intent to terminate the WCAB’s jurisdiction to consider a petition for reconsideration after the 60 days have passed. As a result, decisions on the petition made after that date are void as they exceed the agency’s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal granted the writ of mandate, directing the WCAB to rescind its order granting CIGA’s petition for reconsideration and dismissing Zurich as a party defendant from the proceeding. View "Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. App. Bd." on Justia Law

This case is a labor dispute between Palomar Health, a public healthcare district, and unions representing nurses and healthcare workers employed by Palomar Health. In 2021, during negotiations to renew their collective bargaining agreements, union organizers began a leafletting campaign outside Palomar Health’s main hospital and sought to meet with employees inside the hospital. Palomar Health responded by filing a complaint for trespass and unlawful picketing in San Diego Superior Court, seeking to ban the organizers from their facilities. The unions filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), asserting Palomar Health’s attempts to ban their representatives and the civil lawsuit violated the unions’ rights under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. The trial court overruled the unions’ demurrer and denied their motion to strike, maintaining jurisdiction of the state law claims. On appeal, the unions argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the dispute as their activities were arguably protected by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and that jurisdiction fell exclusively under PERB. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, agreed with the unions, finding that Palomar Health’s claims were preempted and therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The trial court’s order overruling the demurrer was reversed and the matter was remanded with directions to enter an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, and to dismiss the case on the grounds that it is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of PERB. View "Palomar Health v. Nat. Nurses United" on Justia Law

The case involved an appeal by Alexander Alberto Frias, who was convicted of stalking. Frias argued that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice by denying his four requests to substitute the Castaneda Law firm as his counsel. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Frias's first three requests as the firm's attorneys were not ready for trial and the case had been pending for three years, during which time four different attorneys had represented Frias at his request. However, the court ruled that the trial court's denial of Frias's fourth request was an abuse of discretion. At the time of the fourth request, an attorney from the Castaneda firm announced he was ready for trial, subject to a few witness scheduling issues. The appellate court noted that while the trial court was concerned the Castaneda firm’s attorneys would seek a further continuance or that Frias would yet again seek to substitute in new counsel, nothing in the record showed that the Castaneda firm was not prepared for trial. Therefore, the court’s concerns were not sufficient grounds on which to deny Frias’s request to have retained counsel of his choice. The court held that the denial of Frias’s constitutional right to counsel of his choice was structural error, and thus reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "People v. Frias" on Justia Law

In 2017, plaintiff Marcelina Barron sued the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority and bus driver Bruce Arnold Gaillard for general negligence after she was injured in a bus accident. After several delays, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it had not been brought to trial within the five-year deadline defined by the Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. Barron countered that the deadline had been extended by six months due to Emergency rule 10(a), enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Judicial Council of California. The trial court granted the dismissal, interpreting the Ables v. A. Ghazale Brothers, Inc. decision to mean that the emergency rule did not extend the five-year period because it was not a statute. Barron appealed.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the Judicial Council had the authority to enact Emergency rule 10(a), and therefore the time to bring the case to trial was legally extended by six months. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing Barron's complaint prematurely based on an incorrect interpretation of the five-year statute of limitations in section 583.310 and Emergency rule 10(a). The case was reinstated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Barron v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority" on Justia Law