Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Kayla (born in September 2017) came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) after Defendant (mother) was arrested in May 2019. After mother’s arrest, officers found one-year-old Kayla in a motel room, alone. Mother, who was born in California, told an officer and a social worker that she had been living in Nevada since 2017 but had just moved back to California in May 2019 to find work and a place to live. Defendant appealed from an order terminating parental rights to her child, Kayla W. Mother contends that that Nevada’s relinquishment of jurisdiction was conditioned on Kayla being placed with maternal grandfather, so once Kayla was removed from maternal grandfather in December 2021 and placed with another caregiver, the court had to contact Nevada so that it could reassert jurisdiction. Mother argued that the court failed to comply with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA, Fam. Code, Section 3400, et seq.)   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court first held that mother forfeited the UCCJEA issue because she never objected to Nevada’s declination of jurisdiction, California’s acceptance of jurisdiction, or raised any jurisdictional issue when Kayla was removed from maternal grandfather’s care. Further, the court explained that Nevada did not and could not impose a jurisdictional condition precedent. Moreover, Sections 3429 and 3422 did not require the court to consult Nevada. View "In re Kayla W." on Justia Law

A police officer testified that during a forensic interview, 14-year-old Doe stated that when Doe was six years old, Gomez, his father, “sucked [Doe’s] penis” and had him suck Gomez's penis. The officer observed Doe call Gomez and recount the incident. Gomez apologized and said he wanted to kill himself. Doe remembered multiple incidents of inappropriate touching. The officer did not describe Doe’s emotional reactions. No other witnesses testified. The probation report did not include information about Doe. Doe's victim impact statement read: “I am many things, but a victim I am not. I am a survivor. ... I will continue to strive in my life reaching my goals ... as all you ever were to me was a setback.” The government argued that noneconomic damages could be inferred. The court stated, “common sense and experience ... tells you what kind of horrific damage is done ... I can only imagine the torment ... for the last ten years and what he’s going to go through for the rest of his life.” The court ordered restitution of $100,000.The court of appeal reversed, While victims have a right to restitution from criminal defendants (Cal. Const., art. I, section 28) and the law does not require any particular kind of proof to establish the victim’s losses,” there must be some evidence of the impact of the crime on the particular victim. There was no such evidence here. View "People v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jefferey Lurner was a member of Marbella Golf and Country Club (Marbella) where he played golf. Defendants American Golf Corporation and Root’N USA Corporation owned and operated Marbella. At some point after plaintiff joined Marbella, he was diagnosed with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Given this disability, plaintiff claimed he had to drive his golf cart to wherever his ball landed on the golf course. But for safety reasons, Marbella had rules governing where golfers could drive their golf carts. Some of those restrictions applied to all members, including golfers with disabilities. Plaintiff filed suit alleging defendants failed to accommodate his disability and denied him full and equal enjoyment of the golf course. After the case proceeded to trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. The jury found defendants did not “discriminate against or deny [plaintiff] full and equal access to and enjoyment of accommodations or advantages or facilities or services at [Marbella] at any time after May 14, 2016.” The court subsequently denied plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and motion for new trial. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court: "Assuming, without deciding, Marbella’s policies had a discriminatory effect in practice, there was substantial evidence defendants modified their policies for plaintiff. Any error regarding the testimony of defendants’ expert witness also did not result in a miscarriage of justice. We therefore affirm the judgment." View "Lurner v. American Golf Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff took her neighbor’s dog for a walk around Dolphin’s apartment complex. Plaintiff observed that it was raining that day with thunderstorms. Before crossing, Plaintiff observed that the concrete on the North Side Gate driveway was wet, and rainwater formed a current that was running down the driveway. Plaintiff proceeded to cross, and the rainwater current knocked her down. Plaintiff sustained injuries to her right shoulder, left knee, and face. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Dolphin, alleging general negligence and premises liability. Dolphin filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because the running rainwater was open and obvious, Dolphin had no duty to warn. The trial court granted Dolphin’s motion.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court held that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s negligence and premises liability claims because the rainwater current on the driveway was open and obvious. Further, the court wrote that even assuming Plaintiff did not forfeit the necessity exception to the open and obvious rule, she still cannot prevail on the merits. The court wrote that Plaintiff was in a better position to avoid the obvious danger of walking across a current of water that formed as a result of a rainstorm that began that same day. Plaintiff could have chosen to use a different entrance. The burden imposed on Dolphin to constantly monitor weather conditions and immediately install warning signals is outweighed by Plaintiff’s ability to avoid a condition she should have observed as obviously dangerous. View "Nicoletti v. Kest" on Justia Law

California State University’s (CSU) hired Plaintiff as the director of university communications of California State University at Northridge’s Marketing and Communications Department (the Department). The VP testified that after speaking with employees while investigating complaints against Plaintiff, he determined that Plaintiff could not be an effective department leader because he disregarded CSU’s direction regarding professionalism; staff could not work with him; and subordinates were intimidated and threatened by him. Plaintiff filed a complaint against CSU alleging gender, race, color, and sexual orientation discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); race, gender, and sexual orientation harassment; and failure to prevent harassment and discrimination. CSU filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. The trial court entered the order granting summary judgment to Defendants and Plaintiff appealed.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court found that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s discrimination claims. The court explained that CSU established a legitimate reason for the termination. Moreover, the court held that Plaintiff failed to submit evidence that creates a dispute of material fact as to pretext. Similarily, the court explained that Plaintiff has not established a dispute of fact regarding whether CSU’s internal investigation was pretextual. The court wrote that Plaintiff failed to produce substantial evidence of any bias in the E&D investigation, and his statistical evidence is not probative of discriminatory motive. Further, Plaintiff’s evidence of CSU’s commitment to diversity does not create a triable issue of discriminatory motive. View "Martin v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State University" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Perry Chavez appealed a October 13, 2021 order denying Chavez’s motion to vacate a default judgment and default in favor of plaintiff-respondent Dianne Jimenez. The motion was made pursuant to the mandatory relief or attorney fault provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 (b). Chavez’s attorney, Jason Allison, attested in a supporting declaration that the default judgment and default were taken solely due to Allison’s inexcusable neglect in failing to keep track of the case. The court denied the motion as untimely because it was filed more than 180 days after the default judgment was entered. Chavez claimed his motion for mandatory relief was timely because it was filed on September 9, 2021, which was less than 182 days or a “half year” after the default judgment was entered on March 9, 2021. The Court of Appeal concluded that the six-month limitations period of the mandatory and discretionary relief provisions of section 473(b) was either 182 days or six calendar months, whichever period was longer. Under the six-calendar month rule, Chavez’s motion was timely filed on September 9, 2021, six calendar months after the default judgment was entered on March 9, 2021. Nonetheless, the appellate court affirmed the order denying the motion. The motion was not “in proper form” (§ 473(b)) because it was unaccompanied by a proposed responsive pleading. "The [trial] court was required to deny the motion on this ground." View "Jimenez v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Senate Bill 567 amended Penal Code section 1170(b)(2) to provide that when a statute specifies three possible terms of imprisonment, the court cannot impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless it finds that a longer sentence is justified by “circumstances in aggravation of the crime” and “the facts underlying those circumstances” have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury at trial. Before SB 567, trial judges had discretion to impose the lower, middle, or upper term of imprisonment based on their own assessment of which term best served the interests of justice, without making any factual findings.The court of appeal upheld a trial court order allowing the prosecution to amend an information to allege aggravating factors against a criminal defendant. Section 1170(b)(2)'s phrase “circumstances in aggravation” refers to the factors listed in California Rules of Court, 4.421; the Legislature has not violated the separation of powers by that delegation. The use of qualitative terms and the requirement that an aggravating circumstance make the commission of the offense distinctively worse does not render rule 4.421's factors unconstitutionally vague. The factual allegations supporting the aggravating circumstances do not need to be supported by evidence at the preliminary hearing. View "Zepeda v. Superior Court City & County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Defendant Andrew Rhodius appealed the trial court’s denial of a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75. Defendant contended the trial court erred in denying him a full resentencing hearing on the basis that defendant’s prison priors were imposed and stayed, not imposed and executed. The Court of Appeal concluded after review that "interpret the statute to include enhancements that were imposed and stayed would be contrary to the legislative intent and the plain language of the statute." Accordingly, judgment was affirmed the trial court's denial of a full sentencing rehearing. View "California v. Rhodius" on Justia Law

A dispute arose under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA; Water Code 10720) regarding which local groundwater sustainability agency is authorized to manage the groundwater in a portion of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin called the CEMEX area. The City of Marina challenged the groundwater sustainability plan of the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVBGSA) as adopted by Monterey County and posted by the Department of Water Resources as the operative groundwater sustainability plan for most of the Subbasin. The County sought a declaration that the formation of the City’s groundwater sustainability agency was void.The court of appeal affirmed the trial court, agreeing with the Department that under section 10724 the County could step in as the presumptive groundwater management agency for the CEMEX area when the City and SVBGSA failed to reach an agreement to allow prompt designation of a groundwater sustainability agency; the Department properly posted the County’s notice of the formation of a groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area on its website and properly identified the County’s groundwater sustainability agency as the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency for the area. View "City of Marina v. County of Monterey" on Justia Law

The California Construction and Industrial Materials Association and the Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business (Project Opponents) separately petitioned for writs of mandate to require the County of Ventura (County) to vacate an ordinance (the Project) creating overlay zones to protect wildlife migration corridors in rural portions of the County. The Project Opponents claim the Project violates the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The trial court denied the petitions.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that the Project Opponents claim that the Project’s location distinguishes it from other projects in its exempt class. They point out that the Project overlays 10,000 acres of classified mineral resources. However they cite no evidence that other projects in Classes 7 and 8 do not overlay similar resources. Neither mining nor ordinances that attempt to preserve wildlife are unique to the County. The Project Opponents compare the Project to the Class 33 exemption. That exemption is for projects not to exceed five acres to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of habitat for fish, plants, or wildlife. But the County is not relying on the Class 33 exemption. It is relying on the Classes 7 and 8 exemptions. They are separate exemptions and not comparable. View "Cal. Construction & Industrial Mat. Assn. v. County of Ventura" on Justia Law