Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Kristin Casey, a former employee of D.R. Horton, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the company and one of its employees, Kris Hansen, alleging sexual harassment and other claims. D.R. Horton moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement that included an arbitration clause governed by California law. Casey opposed the motion, citing the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which allows plaintiffs to invalidate arbitration agreements in cases involving sexual harassment. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the EFAA was inapplicable due to the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially reviewed the case and granted the motion to compel arbitration, accepting Hansen's joinder. The court concluded that the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement meant that California law, not the EFAA, applied. Casey then filed a petition for a writ of mandate to challenge this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the EFAA preempts state law attempts to compel arbitration in cases related to sexual harassment disputes. The court determined that the EFAA applies to the parties' transaction because it sufficiently involved interstate commerce. The court also concluded that the EFAA's rule of unenforceability of arbitration agreements in sexual harassment cases preempts the state law and that parties cannot contract around the EFAA through a choice-of-law provision. Consequently, the court granted Casey's petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Casey v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Justo Malo Sanchez filed a legal malpractice complaint against Consumer Defense Law Group (CDLG), Tony Cara, Peter Nisson, and Nonprofit Alliance of Consumer Advocates (collectively Defendants). Sanchez alleged that the Defendants committed legal malpractice, resulting in the loss of his house. The retainer agreement he signed included an arbitration clause, which he argued was procedurally and substantively unconscionable due to his inability to understand English and his financial inability to afford arbitration fees.The Superior Court of Orange County initially tentatively denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration but later granted it. Sanchez then filed a petition for extraordinary relief, arguing that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and that he could not afford the arbitration fees.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found substantial procedural unconscionability due to the adhesive nature of the contract, Sanchez's limited English proficiency, and the lack of a Spanish translation or explanation of the arbitration clause. The court also found substantive unconscionability because Sanchez, who was indigent and had been granted a court fee waiver, could not afford the $2,000 arbitration filing fee and additional costs estimated between $25,000 and $30,000.The court concluded that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to unconscionability. Additionally, under the precedent set by Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine, the court held that Sanchez could be excused from paying the arbitration fees due to his inability to afford them. The court granted Sanchez's petition, directing the superior court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to enter an order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Sanchez v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Andrew Murphy, a delivery driver for Grassdoor, was involved in a collision while using his personal vehicle for work. He filed a claim with his insurer, Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (erroneously sued as AAA Auto Insurance of Southern California), which was denied based on a policy exclusion for transporting property for compensation. Murphy sued for breach of contract, arguing the exclusion was ambiguous and overly broad.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of the Exchange, finding the exclusion applied and was neither ambiguous nor against public policy. Murphy appealed, contending the exclusion should only apply to independent contractors and not employees, and that it was overly broad.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the policy language was clear and unambiguous, excluding coverage for vehicles used to transport property for compensation. The court found that Murphy's employment status did not affect the applicability of the exclusion and that the exclusion was not contrary to public policy, as employees like Murphy are protected under Labor Code section 2802, which requires employers to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in the course of their duties.The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Exchange properly denied Murphy's claim based on the compensated carrying exclusion. The court also rejected Murphy's hypothetical scenarios as irrelevant to the case at hand. The judgment was affirmed, and the Exchange was entitled to recover its costs on appeal. View "Murphy v. AAA Auto Insurance of Southern California" on Justia Law

A California consumer entered into an agreement with an RV manufacturer that stipulated all legal disputes would be resolved in Indiana under Indiana law. The consumer later filed a lawsuit in California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging the RV manufacturer failed to repair or replace a defective motorhome. The manufacturer moved to stay or dismiss the action based on forum non conveniens, arguing that the case should be heard in Indiana. To address concerns about the consumer's rights under the Song-Beverly Act, the manufacturer offered to stipulate that California law would apply to the warranty claims in Indiana.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the manufacturer's motion, stating that the forum selection clause was not unconscionable and that the consumer's rights could be preserved by staying the California action while the Indiana case was pending. The court concluded that if the Indiana court declined to apply the Song-Beverly Act, the consumer could move to lift the stay in California.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case and found that the lower court erred in its application of the legal standard. The appellate court held that the stipulation to apply California law in Indiana did not cure the unconscionability of the forum selection clause. The court emphasized that the agreement, as written, was void and against public policy because it attempted to waive unwaivable rights under the Song-Beverly Act. The appellate court concluded that severing the unconscionable terms would condone an illegal practice and that the lower court's solution violated California public policy.The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case, ordering the trial court to deny the motion to dismiss or stay. The appellate court's decision underscores the importance of protecting California consumers' unwaivable statutory rights and ensuring that forum selection clauses do not undermine those rights. View "Hardy v. Forest River, Inc." on Justia Law

D.G. sued the Orange County Social Services Agency and the County of Orange for negligence, alleging that he was sexually abused by his foster father from the mid-1970s until he was a teenager. D.G. claimed he informed his social worker that "bad people are hurting me," but no action was taken. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing there was insufficient evidence that it was aware of any abuse or risk of abuse while D.G. was in the foster home. The trial court agreed, finding the information reported was insufficient to make the abuse foreseeable and that discretionary immunity applied.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of the County, concluding that there was no duty to protect D.G. from the unforeseeable criminal conduct of his foster father and that the social worker was immune under Government Code section 820.2 for discretionary acts. D.G. appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the County failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that a duty of care did not exist and that discretionary act immunity did not apply. The court held that the failure to investigate potential abuse when indicators were present made the harm foreseeable, thus imposing a duty of care. Additionally, the court found no evidence that the social worker made a considered decision regarding the potential abuse. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "D.G. v. Orange County Social Services Agency" on Justia Law

Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. (Nabors) performed oil well plug and abandonment work for the City of Long Beach (the City) between 2012 and 2014. The City had contracted with Tidelands Oil Production Company (Tidelands) for services on the Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project, and Tidelands subcontracted the work to Nabors. The City and Tidelands had concluded that the work was not subject to prevailing wage laws, and Nabors was not informed otherwise during the bid process. After completing the work, Nabors faced a class action from its employees for unpaid prevailing wages, which led to arbitration awards and federal court judgments against Nabors.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained demurrers by the City and Tidelands, dismissing Nabors’s claims for indemnity under Labor Code sections 1781 and 1784. The court ruled that section 1784 could not be applied retroactively to Tidelands and that the arbitration awards confirmed by the federal court did not qualify as court decisions under section 1781.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the section 1784 claim against Tidelands, agreeing that the statute could not be applied retroactively. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the section 1781 claim against the City, holding that the federal court’s confirmation of arbitration awards did qualify as court decisions classifying the work as public work. The case was remanded with instructions to enter a new order overruling the City’s demurrer to the section 1781 cause of action. Nabors was awarded costs on appeal against the City, while Tidelands was awarded costs on appeal against Nabors. View "Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

The Coachella Valley Water District (Water District) appealed a judgment finding that the rates it charged for Coachella Canal water violated Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The Water District argued that the rates were lawful and that no refund remedy was authorized. The court rejected both arguments, finding the rates unlawful and that a refund remedy was constitutionally mandated.In the lower court, the Superior Court of Riverside County ruled that the Water District's Canal Water rates and the Irrigation Water Availability Assessment (IWAA) violated Proposition 218. The court found that the Water District's historical priority argument was not persuasive and that the Water District had made no attempt to show that the rates complied with the California Constitution. The court deferred ruling on remedies and later awarded Class 2 customers approximately $17.5 million in refunds and interest for invalid charges from March 2018 through June 2022.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Howard Jarvis) had standing to challenge the Class 2 rates because domestic customers paid the rates indirectly. The court found that the Class 2 rates were taxes under Article XIII C and did not fall under any exceptions. The court rejected the Water District's arguments that the rates were justified based on historical priority and that they were expenditures of funds. The court also found that the IWAA was an assessment under Proposition 218 and that the Water District failed to show it was proportional to the benefits conferred on the properties.The court affirmed the lower court's ruling on liability and the amount of refund relief awarded. However, the court found that the injunction in the judgment was overbroad and modified the judgment to strike the paragraph enjoining the Water District from imposing any future Canal Water rates and charges that did not comply with Proposition 218. As modified, the judgment was affirmed, and Howard Jarvis was awarded its costs on appeal. View "Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Coachella Valley Water Dist." on Justia Law

The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. (EIPC) filed a lawsuit for declaratory relief against Mark A. Lunn, the Ventura County Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters. EIPC claimed that their observers were denied adequate access to observe the processing and counting of vote-by-mail ballots as required under Election Code section 15105. They argued that Lunn restricted observers to areas where they could not properly monitor the election process. Lunn maintained that the designated observation areas were sufficient to prevent tampering while allowing observation.The trial court ruled in favor of Lunn, finding that the designated observation areas were adequate for observers to monitor the election process. The court concluded that Lunn's procedures complied with statutory requirements, allowing observers to effectively observe established vote counting procedures.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court addressed the issue of mootness, noting that the case involved matters of continuing public interest, such as the rights of election observers and election integrity, and thus warranted a decision despite the specific elections in question being past events. The court applied the substantial evidence standard of review, affirming that the trial court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence.The appellate court held that the trial court correctly construed the scope of section 15104, which requires that vote-by-mail ballot processing and counting be open to the public and that observers be allowed sufficiently close access to monitor the process. The court found that the trial court's interpretation and application of the statute were correct, and that Lunn's procedures met the statutory requirements. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and costs were awarded to the respondent. View "Election Integrity Project California, Inc. v. Lunn" on Justia Law

Christopher Hamilton was convicted of federal felony possession of child pornography. After a federal district court terminated his federal sex offender registration requirement, the California Attorney General notified him of his lifetime obligation to register under California law, pursuant to Penal Code section 290.005(a). The Attorney General determined that the state law equivalent of Hamilton’s federal offense required lifetime registration, placing him in the highest tier of California’s three-tier scheme.Hamilton petitioned the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to terminate his state registration requirement. The Superior Court denied his petition and a subsequent amended motion. Hamilton appealed the denials, arguing violations of equal protection and due process.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the Attorney General’s classification of Hamilton’s offense as a felony with a lifetime registration requirement did not violate equal protection. The court reasoned that the federal offense’s classification as a felony, based on custodial exposure, justified the equivalent state offense’s classification as a felony. Additionally, the court found that the federal offense’s requirement of interstate or foreign commerce provided a rational basis for the different treatment.The court also rejected Hamilton’s due process challenge, concluding that he received notice and had opportunities to contest his tier designation through his petition and amended motion. Lastly, the court dismissed Hamilton’s vagueness challenge, finding that the term “equivalent” in section 290.005(a) was sufficiently clear when considered in context with other statutory provisions.The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s orders denying Hamilton’s petition and amended motion. View "People v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jenny-Ashley Colon-Perez sued her former employer, Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (SIS), alleging multiple causes of action related to her employment. After SIS moved to compel arbitration, the parties agreed to arbitrate, and the trial court ordered the claims to arbitration and stayed the court action. SIS paid two arbitration fee invoices but failed to pay the third invoice within the 30-day period required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. Colon-Perez elected to withdraw from arbitration and moved to vacate the arbitration and stay order. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that SIS had materially breached the arbitration agreement and Colon-Perez was entitled to proceed with her claims in court. SIS then moved to vacate the order under section 473(b), which the trial court denied.The trial court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not preempt section 1281.98 and that SIS had materially breached the arbitration agreement by failing to pay the fees on time. The court also found that section 1281.98 did not violate the contracts clause of the United States and California Constitutions. SIS appealed, arguing that the FAA preempted section 1281.98, that section 1281.98 violated the contracts clause, and that it was entitled to relief under section 473(b).The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's orders. The court held that the FAA did not preempt section 1281.98, as the state law could be applied concurrently with federal law. The court also found that section 1281.98 did not violate the contracts clause because it served a significant and legitimate public purpose and was appropriately tailored to achieve that purpose. Additionally, the court ruled that section 473(b) relief was not available for SIS's failure to timely pay arbitration fees, as the statute's strict 30-day deadline was intended to be inflexible. View "Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists" on Justia Law