Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A child, X.D., was born in May 2022 and immediately placed with prospective adoptive parents, Cliff and Rebecca, after his biological mother, Jessica, relinquished him for adoption. Jessica had suffered repeated physical and emotional abuse from X.D.’s biological father, Raymon, including an incident where Raymon struck her in the face two weeks after learning of her pregnancy. Following this, Jessica left Raymon, sought refuge in a domestic violence shelter, and cut off communication. Raymon was unaware of X.D.’s birth and believed Jessica had miscarried after she told him the baby “is not here no more.” Throughout Jessica’s pregnancy, Raymon made sporadic attempts to contact her but did not provide support for the pregnancy or the child.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the adoption petition and Raymon’s opposition, in which he claimed status as a “Kelsey S. father”—an unwed biological father who is constitutionally entitled to block adoption if he promptly demonstrates a full commitment to parental responsibilities. The trial court found Raymon qualified as a Kelsey S. father, reasoning that Jessica’s actions prevented him from asserting his rights and that he had shown sufficient emotional and financial commitment. The court excluded key evidence—screenshots of Raymon’s threatening text messages—on authentication and hearsay grounds.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred in excluding the text message evidence, which was sufficiently authenticated and relevant. Upon considering the full record, including the excluded evidence, the appellate court found insufficient support for Raymon’s claim to Kelsey S. status. The court further determined that it was not in X.D.’s best interest for Raymon to retain parental rights. The judgment was reversed and remanded with directions to allow the adoption to proceed. View "Adoption of X.D." on Justia Law

A man was charged with and convicted of raping a woman who was intoxicated. The incident occurred after the two met at a bar, where the woman had consumed significant amounts of alcohol and experienced a blackout, leaving her with little memory of the events. The defendant, who was known for dressing as a pirate and living in his van, accompanied the woman home, where sexual intercourse occurred. The woman later reported the incident to the police after learning from the defendant that they had sex, which she did not remember. Medical examination revealed injuries consistent with intercourse, but expert testimony indicated such injuries could result from either consensual or nonconsensual sex.The Santa Cruz County Superior Court conducted a jury trial, during which the jury found the defendant guilty of rape of an intoxicated person and found true certain aggravating factors. The defendant was sentenced to six years in prison. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of battery, and by admitting prejudicial evidence regarding his homelessness. He also raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that battery is a lesser included offense of rape of an intoxicated person and that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on this lesser offense. The appellate court found there was substantial evidence from which a jury could have concluded the defendant did not know, and reasonably should not have known, that the victim was too intoxicated to consent. The court determined this instructional error was prejudicial and reversed the conviction, remanding the case for a possible new trial with proper jury instructions. View "P. v. Mirabal" on Justia Law

The case concerns a petition for resentencing filed by Safoloooi Sam Taito, who was convicted in 1994 of first degree murder with a felony-murder special circumstance, as well as second degree robbery, for the killing of Librado Godoy Lopez. The evidence at trial showed that Taito and a codefendant repeatedly punched and kicked Lopez, stabbed him in the head with a screwdriver, and took his personal property. Lopez died from both blunt force trauma and the stab wound. Witnesses testified to Taito’s direct involvement in the attack and theft.Following the charges, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County instructed the jury on theories of premeditated murder and felony murder, including aiding and abetting. The jury convicted Taito of first degree murder and found true the felony-murder special circumstance and a weapon enhancement. He was sentenced to life without parole. The California Court of Appeal previously affirmed his conviction in 1997.In 2021, Taito petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that changes to California’s felony-murder law made him eligible for relief. The Superior Court denied the petition at the prima facie stage, finding the record conclusively established that the jury’s findings met the requirements of current law.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the denial de novo. The court held that Taito was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law because the jury’s true finding on the felony-murder special circumstance demonstrated he was convicted under a theory consistent with current Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e)(2). The court affirmed the Superior Court’s order denying Taito’s petition for resentencing. View "P. v. Taito" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs leased a 2,400-acre parcel of undeveloped land in San Luis Obispo County, California, from the predecessor of the defendant, Eureka Energy Company. The lease, originally executed in 1968 and later novated, provided for a 99-year term with an option to renew for another 99 years. The property, known as Wild Cherry Canyon, was historically used for cattle grazing, but the lease itself stated that the premises could be used for “any lawful purpose.” The parties understood that cattle grazing would continue, primarily to reduce wildfire risk rather than for commercial livestock production. In 2018, the plaintiffs exercised their option to renew the lease, but Eureka asserted that the lease was limited to 51 years under California Civil Code section 717, which restricts leases for agricultural purposes.The Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County held a court trial and issued a detailed statement of decision. It found that the lease was for agricultural purposes, specifically cattle grazing, and concluded that section 717 applied, limiting the lease to 51 years. The court entered judgment for Eureka, declaring that the lease expired in 2019 and that the plaintiffs had no further interest in the property. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the lease was not for agricultural purposes within the meaning of section 717, given the fire prevention intent.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. It held that, although cattle grazing generally constitutes an agricultural purpose under section 717, the particular circumstances here—where grazing was intended for fire prevention and not for commercial agriculture—meant the lease was not for agricultural purposes as defined by the statute. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, finding that the lease was valid beyond the 51-year limit and that the plaintiffs’ leasehold interest should not be forfeited. View "Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co." on Justia Law

Ashley McCall Hart and Steven Hart, who were married and have two children, became involved in a series of legal disputes following Ashley’s filing for dissolution of marriage in October 2017. On the same day, Ashley requested a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Steven, which the Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted temporarily. Steven responded by filing his own DVRO request against Ashley, but after hearings, the court denied Steven’s request and granted Ashley a one-year DVRO. Ashley later dismissed a renewal request in accordance with a settlement agreement. In July 2023, Ashley again sought a DVRO, and the court issued a nine-month order. Before its expiration, Ashley requested renewal, which was granted for another nine months.Ashley appealed the renewal duration, arguing that Family Code section 6345 requires a minimum five-year renewal period for DVROs. The Superior Court had found Ashley demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of future abuse but believed it had discretion to renew the DVRO for less than five years.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It held that under Family Code section 6345, subdivision (a), a court may renew a DVRO only for five or more years, or permanently, at its discretion, but not for a period less than five years. The court found that the statutory language and legislative history clearly establish a mandatory minimum renewal period of five years, and the trial court’s discretion is limited to choosing between five years, a longer period, or permanent renewal. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s order to the extent it provided for a nine-month renewal and remanded with instructions to modify the order to provide for a five-year renewal. View "Hart v. Hart" on Justia Law

A plaintiff brought suit against a defendant for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and related claims after the defendant published false and damaging material about her online. The defendant initially participated in the litigation with counsel, but later became self-represented and provided a P.O. box as his address. After failing to appear or defend the action, his answer was stricken, and the plaintiff mailed a statement of damages to the address he provided. The court entered a default judgment against the defendant for over $1 million, which was later renewed nearly a decade after its entry.Prior to the current appeal, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion and struck his cross-complaint after direction from the California Court of Appeal, which also awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff. After the defendant’s answer was stricken for nonappearance, the plaintiff served a statement of damages and obtained a default judgment. Years later, the plaintiff renewed the judgment, and the defendant moved to vacate the renewal, arguing the default judgment was void due to improper notice of damages and defective service.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. The court held that the plaintiff’s claims for defamation and related torts qualified as personal injury actions, making a statement of damages appropriate. The court further held that use of a custom statement of damages form, rather than the Judicial Council form, did not render the judgment void, and that service by mail to the defendant’s provided address was proper under the applicable statutes. The court affirmed the order denying the motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. View "Backlund v. Stone" on Justia Law

Jose Haro Nevarez was involved in a fatal collision on Interstate-15 after driving while intoxicated at excessive speeds. His SUV became disabled and blocked a high-occupancy vehicle lane with its lights off. Minutes later, a motorcyclist, Robert Cole Sutton, struck the rear of Nevarez’s SUV and was killed. Nevarez admitted to officers at the scene that he was drunk and on DUI probation, and subsequent tests confirmed his blood alcohol level was well above the legal limit. Nevarez had previously been convicted of DUI and received a Watson advisement, warning him of the potential for a murder charge if he killed someone while driving under the influence.Following the incident, the People charged Nevarez with second-degree murder and other related offenses in the Superior Court of San Diego County. At the preliminary hearing, the magistrate found probable cause for all charges, distinguishing the facts from People v. Superior Court (Chagolla) (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 499. Nevarez’s defense moved to set aside the murder charge under Penal Code section 995, arguing that Chagolla precluded liability because he was not driving at the moment of the fatal collision. The trial court denied the motion, finding Chagolla factually distinguishable.Nevarez then petitioned the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, for a writ of prohibition to overturn the trial court’s order. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that probable cause supported the murder charge. The court clarified that liability for second-degree murder under People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290 does not automatically end when an intoxicated driver ceases driving. Instead, a fact-specific analysis of implied malice and proximate cause is required. The court rejected a rigid rule and affirmed that the circumstances supported probable cause for both implied malice and proximate cause in Nevarez’s case. View "Nevarez v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles implemented the recycLA program in 2017, establishing exclusive franchise agreements with private waste haulers to provide waste collection services for commercial and multi-unit residential properties. Under these agreements, haulers paid the City a percentage of their gross receipts as a franchise fee. Several property owners and tenants who paid for waste hauling services under this system filed a consolidated class action against the City, alleging that the franchise fees were actually an unlawful tax imposed without voter approval, in violation of Proposition 218 and related constitutional provisions. The plaintiffs sought refunds of the alleged illegal taxes and declaratory relief regarding the validity of the fees.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County considered the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. While the court found the proposed class sufficiently numerous and ascertainable, and agreed that the question of whether the franchise fees constituted an illegal tax was subject to common proof, it identified a fundamental problem: not all proposed class members suffered an economic loss, as some landlords and property owners may have passed the cost of the fees on to tenants. The court concluded that entitlement to refunds was not susceptible to common proof and that individual issues predominated over common ones. It also found that a class action was not the superior method for resolving the dispute, due to the risk of unjust enrichment and the complexity of determining who actually bore the cost of the fees. The court denied class certification.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s order under the substantial evidence standard. The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that individual issues predominated and that class treatment was not superior. The order denying class certification was affirmed. View "Leeds v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

Haamid Khan created an account with Coinbase, Inc., an online platform for buying, selling, and storing digital currencies. Khan alleged that Coinbase charged customers a hidden “Spread Fee” during transactions, which was not clearly disclosed to users. He claimed that the fee was only revealed if a customer clicked a tooltip icon and that the platform’s design misled less sophisticated users by imposing the fee only on those using the default trading option. Khan sought an injunction under California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws to prohibit Coinbase from continuing these practices.Coinbase responded by filing a petition in the City & County of San Francisco Superior Court to compel arbitration, citing a user agreement that included an arbitration clause and a waiver of class and public injunctive relief. The trial court denied Coinbase’s petition, finding that Khan’s claims sought public injunctive relief, which could not be waived or compelled to arbitration under California law, specifically referencing McGill v. Citibank, N.A. The court determined that the relief sought would benefit the public at large, not just Khan or a defined group of users.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that Khan’s complaint seeks public injunctive relief under the standards set forth in McGill. The court found that the arbitration agreement’s waiver of public injunctive relief was invalid and unenforceable. It concluded that Khan’s requested injunction would primarily benefit the general public by prohibiting ongoing deceptive practices, and thus, his claims could proceed in court rather than arbitration. The order denying Coinbase’s petition to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Kahn v. Coinbase, Inc." on Justia Law

A law firm sought to recover over $1.7 million in fees and costs for representing the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Alex Villanueva, and the Sheriff’s Department in litigation initiated by the County of Los Angeles. Due to a conflict of interest, the County’s Board of Supervisors offered Villanueva independent counsel, allowing him to select his attorney but reserving discretion over compensation. Villanueva chose the law firm, which entered into an engagement agreement with him. The County, however, sent its own retainer agreement to the firm, which the firm refused to sign. The firm continued its representation but was never paid. After the firm demanded arbitration under its engagement agreement, the County and related plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaration that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed and an injunction against the arbitration.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted a preliminary injunction, then summary judgment for the County plaintiffs, finding the Sheriff lacked authority to enter into the engagement agreement. The court denied the law firm’s post-judgment motion for leave to file a cross-complaint, citing both untimeliness and bad faith. The firm then filed a separate lawsuit against the County and related defendants, asserting breach of contract and related claims. The trial court sustained the County’s demurrer, dismissing the complaint with prejudice on grounds that the claims were compulsory cross-claims in the earlier action and for failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed both the judgment in the County’s action and the dismissal of the law firm’s separate lawsuit. The court held that the Sheriff did not have authority to retain counsel on his own; only the Board of Supervisors could contract for legal services. The law firm’s claims were barred as compulsory cross-claims and for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. View "County of Los Angeles v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP" on Justia Law