Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a former tenant, appeals a judgment of dismissal following the trial court’s granting a motion in limine filed by Defendant Cachuma Village, LLC (Cachuma), her landlord. Plaintiff filed a complaint for, among other things, personal injuries from exposure to toxic mold. Defendant moved in limine to exclude Plaintiff’s medical expert from testifying about the medical causation of her illnesses due to mold.   The Second Appellate District reversed, finding that the trial court erred in excluding Plaintiff’s medical expert’s evidence. The court explained that medical doctors are experts who are in the best position to determine the nature of illnesses experienced by patients. The expert witness here testified that Plaintiff’s “adverse health effects” were the result of her living at the Defendant's residence, where she was exposed to “excess mold growth.” The trial court ruled the expert was not qualified to make a diagnosis of mold as the cause of her illnesses. But the expert’s opinion was based on facts, not on a “leap of logic or conjecture.” Further, the court wrote that medical doctors who examine patients may reach the most probable diagnosis for a patient’s condition through a process of elimination. Here, the expert testified that he conducted “a differential diagnosis” to determine the cause of Plaintiff’s illness. This is a standard method doctors use to eliminate potential causes of illness to be able to reach a diagnosis. Further, the court explained that in addition to being a medical doctor, the expert is also a scientific researcher. His experience in that area provided additional support for his differential diagnosis that exposure to mold caused Plaintiff’s respiratory illness. View "Brancati v. Cachuma Village, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ventura County District Attorney charged Defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm, ammunition and a machine gun. As to each charge, it was alleged that Defendant suffered a 2021 prior strike conviction for possessing a firearm for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Assembly Bill No. 333 amended section 186.22 to require evidence that the firearm possession provides more than a reputational benefit to the street gang. Because no such evidence supported Defendant’s prior conviction, the trial court concluded that it no longer qualified as a strike. Defendant pleaded no contest to the three charges against him and was sentenced to two years in state prison. The district attorney appealed.   The Second Appellate District vacated the judgment and reversed the order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the strike allegations. The court explained that when it enacted Assembly Bill No. 333, the Legislature found that gang enhancements have not been shown to reduce crime or violence. The Legislature also found that these enhancements have been applied inconsistently and disproportionately against people of color. They have additionally been applied to minor crimes and have been used to “legitimize severe punishment.” However, the court explained that while these are valid concerns, it is not the province of the court to apply legislative concerns to a statutory scheme the Legislature has left unchanged. View "P. v. Aguirre" on Justia Law

The Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (the Division) issued a citation to Granite Construction Company/Granite Industrial, Inc. (Granite Construction) for allegedly violating three regulations relevant here. One was that the company required its employees to wear masks without first providing a medical evaluation to determine their fitness to wear them. And the Division alleged the company violated two other regulations because it exposed its employees to dust containing a harmful fungus— namely, Coccidioides, the fungus that causes Valley fever—and failed to implement adequate measures to limit this exposure. After Granite Construction disputed these allegations, an administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected the Division’s claims. The ALJ reasoned that no credible evidence showed that Granite Construction required its employees to wear masks and no reliable evidence showed that Coccidioides was present at the worksite. But after the Division petitioned for reconsideration, the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (the Board) reversed on these issues and ruled for the Division. The trial court later denied Granite Construction’s petition for writ of administrative mandate seeking to set aside the Board’s decision. The Court of Appeal reversed: the Court agreed insufficient evidence showed its employees were exposed to Coccidioides. But the Court rejected its additional claim that it allowed (rather than required) its employees to wear masks, finding sufficient evidence supported the Board’s contrary ruling on this point. View "Granite Construction Co. v. CalOSHA" on Justia Law

At a dispositional hearing, a juvenile court placed R.Q. (minor) with her biological father, C.H. On appeal, defendant-appellant, K.Q. (presumed father), contended the court abused its discretion in placing minor with C.H. Plaintiff-respondent, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the department), received a referral alleging physical abuse to R.Q. by A.P. (stepmother). Minor disclosed stepmother had choked her and pulled her hair. The family had an open, voluntary family maintenance plan due to stepmother hitting minor. The department had also received a previous referral alleging physical abuse to minor by stepmother. A.H., minor’s biological mother (mother), did not live in the home. The social worker spoke to minor and R.Q.2, the biological daughter of presumed father and mother, who both reported incidents of physical abuse by stepmother. Despite stepmother and presumed father both denying the allegations, the department took minor into protective custody pursuant to a warrant. The department filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 petition alleging mother and presumed father failed to protect minor from physical abuse; that mother and presumed father had substance abuse problems; and that mother had an untreated mental illness. C.H. indicated he had not found out about minor's birth until she was two years old. After paternity testing, supervised visits and ultimately a social worker review, at a dispositional hearing, it was recommended the minor be placed with C.H. Presumed father contended the court abused its discretion in placing minor with C.H. The department agreed that a juvenile court did not have authority under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2 to place a child with a “mere biological parent”; however, the department maintained that a juvenile court has discretion to order such a placement under its broad authority to act in a child’s best interest. Thus, the department argued the court acted within its discretion in placing minor with C.H. To this the Court of Appeal agreed with the department and affirmed the court order placing the child with her biological father. View "In re R.Q." on Justia Law

The parents, now deceased, established the Trust. Their daughter is the trustee. There are four other children. The Trust is a 70 percent shareholder of the Company. Each sibling owns an equal share of the remaining 30 percent. A Company shareholder agreement provides that any shareholder owning more than 50 percent of the company can take various actions in their “sole discretion,” including borrowing, lending, and transferring assets. The Trust's balance, after expenses and specific distributions, shall be distributed equally to five sub-trusts benefiting the five siblings. Among the Trust’s liabilities are outstanding loans made by the Company. Two siblings filed a petition to instruct the trustee, to take specified actions, including directing the Company to borrow substantial sums of money to pay estate taxes owed by the Trust. The Company responded to the Petition.The court held that because the Company was neither a trustee nor a beneficiary, it lacked standing to participate in proceedings on the Petition. The court of appeal remanded, finding, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that Probate Code section 1043(a), authorizes “interested persons” to respond or object at or before a hearing in a trust proceeding. The probate court must make the discretionary determination of whether the Company is an interested person. View "Colvis v. Binswanger" on Justia Law

Pittman was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for a 1993 second-degree murder. Pittman, then 21 years old, committed the crime with two others, who were 16 and 17 years old. At a 2017 parole hearing, Pittman provided new inculpatory statements. Later, the trial court relied on Pittman’s parole hearing testimony to conclude he was not entitled to relief under Penal Code section 1172.6,1 which allows individuals to petition for relief if they were convicted of murder under theories invalidated by Senate Bill 1437 (natural and probable consequences doctrine of murder liability); the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder under California law as amended by Senate Bill 1437. A court “may consider evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial that is admissible under current law [and] new or additional evidence” offered by either party.The court of appeal reversed and remanded. Pittman’s parole hearing testimony could be considered by the trial court and all of the evidence, taken together, could constitute substantial evidence in support of the trial court’s decision if there were no other circumstances warranting consideration. However, Pittman’s youth is a relevant factor in assessing whether he formed the requisite mental state for conviction, which the trial court did not consider. View "People v. Pittman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Defendant for personal injuries related to an automobile accident in which Defendant’s car rear-ended Plaintiff’s car. A jury trial resulted in a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs for past noneconomic damages only, and Plaintiffs appealed. After trial on remand, a jury awarded Plaintiffs a total of $15,125 in damages. Plaintiffs moved for attorney fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.4201 on the ground Defendant had unreasonably denied several requests for admission regarding, primarily, the status of certain medical records as business records within the meaning of Evidence Code section 1271. The trial court denied the motion and awarded costs to Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s denial of their motion for fees and costs and the award of costs to Defendant.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the award of costs to Defendant, reversed the denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for fees and costs and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the trial court erred by denying Plaintiffs’ motion for expenses pursuant to section 2033.420. The court held that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover expenses incurred in proving the medical records were business records. Further, the court wrote that it agreed with the trial court it was unreasonable of Defendant to deny she had caused “some injury” to Plaintiff. The record contains substantial evidence that at the time of the requests for admission, Defendant knew at least some injury had been caused by the accident. View "Vargas v. Gallizzi" on Justia Law

Appellant R.L., presumed father (father) of minor C.L. (the minor), appealed the juvenile court’s order terminating father’s parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. The minor was removed from his parents through a protective custody warrant under Welfare and Institutions Code section 340. Father contended the Amador County Department of Social Services (the department) failed to comply with the initial inquiry requirements of California law implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) because the department did not inquire of extended family members as to the minor’s Indian ancestry when he was removed. The Court of Appeal agreed with father and held that the duty to inquire of extended family members applied when removal is made via a section 340 protective custody warrant. Because the department failed to comply with this duty, remand was required. Remand was also required because father stated that his great-grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee at the detention hearing, triggering a duty of further inquiry into the minor’s Indian ancestry. This further inquiry duty was not satisfied. The Court therefore conditionally reversed the order terminating parental rights. View "In re C.L." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed his conviction, by jury, of the attempted willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder and fleeing a pursuing peace officer’s motor vehicle while driving recklessly. It acquitted Appellant of a second count of attempted murder on the same victim. The trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison plus a 20-year enhancement term for the firearm use and a concurrent term of 27 months on the evading conviction. Appellant contends that numerous evidentiary, procedural, and instructional errors occurred at his trial. Further, the court noted that a primary issue is the contention that the prosecutor violated the RJA, section 745 and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue at the sentencing hearing.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court concluded that the Legislature acted within its law-making authority when it declared in the RJA that the use of racially discriminatory language in a criminal trial constitutes a miscarriage of justice, that the prosecutor violated the statute when she referred to Appellant’s complexion and “ambiguous ethnic presentation” as reasons to doubt his credibility, and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to bring this statutory violation to the attention of the trial court at the earliest possible opportunity. The court found that because Appellant’s trial counsel failed to raise the violation at the sentencing hearing, the trial court has not yet had the opportunity to exercise its discretion to select which of the enumerated remedies it would impose. Consequently, the court remanded the matter to the trial court so it may exercise its discretion in this regard. View "P. v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Boesch and Hudson were unmarried partners. The 1994 Boesch Trust was funded with his 50 percent interest in each of the subject properties. The Hudson Trust was funded with Hudson’s 50 percent interest in each of those properties. Boesch died in 1995. Hudson died in 2019. Mulvihill is the successor trustee of both Trusts. The Museum is the sole residuary beneficiary of the Boesch Trust.Mulvihill filed a Probate Code section 17200 petition, seeking instructions due to “a potential conflict in administering the trust,” alleging the Museum requested that the acquisition indebtedness on the subject properties be paid off and that the Boesch Trust make an in-kind distribution of its interests to the Museum so that the Museum may, as a tax-exempt organization, sell the interests without suffering certain tax consequences. The Hudson Trust beneficiaries, which do not face the same tax consequences, prefer that the trusts sell the properties undivided and distribute the proceeds.The probate court instructed Mulvihill to sell the properties and distribute the proceeds. The court of appeal reversed, noting a trust provision granting the trustee “sole discretion” to distribute the trust property in cash or in kind. Because Mulvihill never purported to exercise that discretion, the court remanded with directions that, barring any conflict of interest matters that may arise, Mulvihill be instructed to exercise his discretion to grant or deny the Museum’s request for an in-kind distribution of the trust’s property interests. View "Stadel Art Museum v. Mulvihill" on Justia Law