Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In June 2013, Los Angeles Sheriff’s deputies responded to a drive-by shooting where they found a man with multiple gunshot wounds who later died at the hospital. Javier Villagrana and his cousin, Jaime Chavez, were charged with the murder of Juan Vasquez, with gang and firearm enhancements. Villagrana pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and admitted to gang and firearm use allegations, resulting in a 26-year prison sentence. Chavez also pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and admitted the gang enhancement but did not admit to using a firearm.Villagrana later filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing he could not be convicted of murder under the amended laws. The trial court found he established a prima facie case and issued an order to show cause. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition, concluding Villagrana was ineligible for resentencing as he was the actual killer or a direct aider and abettor to the murder.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Villagrana was ineligible for resentencing. The court noted that Villagrana’s plea and admissions, including his use of a firearm and the gang-related nature of the crime, were sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as either the actual shooter or a direct aider and abettor. The court rejected the argument that the trial court applied an erroneous standard of proof, affirming that the People had proven Villagrana’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the new law. View "People v. Villagrana" on Justia Law

David Weingarten and Krystal Mamer, who were never married, agreed to conceive a child via in vitro fertilization (IVF) using Weingarten’s sperm and a third party’s egg. They agreed to share the IVF costs, which totaled $55,635. Approximately one month after the child was born, Mamer filed a petition to determine parental relationship under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). Weingarten responded and later requested an order directing Mamer to reimburse him for half of the IVF costs. Mamer opposed, arguing that the statute did not authorize a court to order a mother to pay a father for any pregnancy expenses.The family court held a hearing and denied Weingarten’s reimbursement request, ruling it had no authority under Family Code section 7637 to order reimbursement of expenses incurred before the parentage action was filed. Weingarten appealed the order, and the family court subsequently entered a judgment declaring Mamer and Weingarten to be the parents of the child.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Family Code section 7637 does authorize a court to direct a parent to pay reasonable expenses of the mother’s pregnancy, including IVF costs, even if those expenses were incurred before the parentage action was filed. The court found that the family court erred in its interpretation of the statute and that the statute does not limit the court’s authority to order reimbursement to expenses incurred after the parentage action is filed.The appellate court reversed the order denying Weingarten’s reimbursement request and remanded the matter to the family court to exercise its discretion in determining whether to direct Mamer to pay a portion of the IVF costs. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, and Weingarten was entitled to recover costs on appeal. View "Mamer v. Weingarten" on Justia Law

Trevon Bey was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon and carrying a loaded firearm in public. The trial court dismissed a prior strike conviction and sentenced Bey to three years for each count, to be served concurrently. Bey appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly revoked his self-representation status, that his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon violated his Second Amendment rights, and that California's concealed carry laws were unconstitutional under a recent Supreme Court decision.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially allowed Bey to represent himself but later revoked this status due to his disruptive behavior and failure to follow court rules. Bey repeatedly challenged the court's authority, disrespected the court, and disrupted proceedings, despite multiple warnings. The court appointed standby counsel to represent him, citing his inability to adhere to courtroom protocol.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Bey's self-representation status due to his continuous disruptive conduct. The court also found that Bey's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon did not violate his Second Amendment rights, referencing recent Supreme Court decisions that upheld prohibitions on firearm possession by felons. Additionally, the court rejected Bey's challenge to California's concealed carry laws, noting that the unconstitutional "good cause" requirement was severable from the rest of the licensing scheme.The Court of Appeal agreed with both parties that the sentence for carrying a loaded firearm in public should be stayed under Penal Code section 654, as it was based on the same act as the possession charge. The court modified the judgment to stay the sentence on count 2 and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "People v. Bey" on Justia Law

Deari Cole was committed to a developmental center under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500, which allows for the commitment of individuals with developmental disabilities who are deemed a danger to themselves or others. Cole was charged with several crimes and found incompetent to stand trial. Subsequently, he was committed to the Porterville Developmental Center for one year. Just before the expiration of his commitment, the People filed a petition to extend it, and Cole was held pending trial on the recommitment petition. Cole filed a petition for writ of mandate or habeas corpus, arguing that equal protection principles required his release pending trial.The Contra Costa County Superior Court denied Cole's request for release pending trial, relying on section 6506, which allows for interim placement at a suitable facility. Cole's petition for writ of mandate or habeas corpus was summarily denied by the Court of Appeal. Cole then petitioned for review, and the California Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeal to vacate its order and issue an order to show cause.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and rejected Cole's equal protection arguments. The court held that the statutory scheme under section 6500, which allows for continued confinement pending a hearing on a recommitment petition, did not violate equal protection principles. The court reasoned that the differences between individuals with developmental disabilities and those with mental health disorders or found not guilty by reason of insanity justified the different procedures. The court concluded that the legislative distinctions were reasonable and factually based. Consequently, the court dismissed Cole's petition as moot, as he had already been released from custody for unrelated reasons. View "Cole v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Town of Apple Valley (TAV) sought to condemn a private water utility system via eminent domain. In November 2015, TAV passed two resolutions of necessity (RON) to acquire the water system, which was owned by Carlyle Infrastructures Partners and operated by Apple Valley Ranchos Water (AVR). In January 2016, TAV filed an eminent domain action to acquire the system. A day later, Carlyle sold the system to Liberty Utilities. After extensive proceedings, including a 67-day bench trial, the trial court found that TAV did not have the right to acquire the system and entered judgment and awarded attorney’s fees to Liberty. TAV appealed.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County ruled that Liberty bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that at least one of the required elements for eminent domain was not satisfied. The court also ruled that Liberty need not submit the administrative record (AR) underlying TAV’s RONs. The trial court held a bench trial and issued a Statement of Decision (SOD) finding that Liberty met its burden, rejecting TAV’s evidence and relying on Liberty’s post-RON evidence. TAV’s objections to the SOD were overruled, and the court entered judgment for Liberty and awarded attorney’s fees.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the trial court applied the wrong standard of proof and failed to give appropriate deference to TAV’s decision and findings. The trial court also improperly based its decision on post-RON facts and events. The appellate court remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, directing the trial court to determine whether to allow TAV to take the water system, remand the matter to TAV for further administrative proceedings, or hold a new trial applying the correct burdens of proof and standard of review. View "Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchose Water" on Justia Law

Luis Mendez was charged with two misdemeanors in one case and several felonies and a misdemeanor in a separate case. The trial court found him mentally incompetent and suspended criminal proceedings in both cases. Mendez was committed to the State Department of State Hospitals for treatment. After his mental competency was restored, the trial court reinstated all charges and denied Mendez’s motion to dismiss the misdemeanor case.The Superior Court of Orange County initially suspended criminal proceedings in both cases and committed Mendez to the State Hospitals. Mendez’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the misdemeanor case, arguing that section 1370.01 applied, which mandates dismissal of misdemeanor charges if the defendant is found mentally incompetent. The trial court denied the motion, stating that section 1370 applied because Mendez was charged with both felonies and misdemeanors.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that section 1370 applies to defendants charged with felonies, even if misdemeanors are charged in a separate document. The court found that the trial court correctly applied section 1370, reinstated criminal proceedings after Mendez’s competency was restored, and denied the motion to dismiss the misdemeanor case. The court concluded that section 1370.01 applies only when a defendant is charged with misdemeanors exclusively. The petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition was denied. View "Mendez v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A minor, L.W., suffered severe injuries when an Audi Q7, allegedly defective, surged forward and crushed him against a garage wall. L.W., his mother, and two siblings filed a products liability suit against Audi AG and Volkswagen Group of America Inc. (VWGoA), claiming the vehicle lacked necessary safety features. Audi AG, a German company, manufactures vehicles sold in the U.S. through VWGoA, which markets and sells them to authorized dealerships, including in California.The Superior Court of Placer County granted Audi's motion to quash service of summons, finding no personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to establish Audi's purposeful availment of California's market or a substantial connection between Audi's activities and the plaintiffs' injuries. The court also found that exercising jurisdiction would not be reasonable or consistent with fair play and substantial justice.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that Audi, through VWGoA, deliberately served the U.S. market, including California, and thus could reasonably anticipate being subject to suit in California. The court held that the plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating Audi's purposeful availment and the relatedness of the controversy to Audi's contacts with California. The court also found that exercising jurisdiction over Audi would be fair and reasonable, given California's significant interest in providing a forum for its residents and enforcing safety regulations.The appellate court reversed the trial court's order granting the motion to quash and remanded the case with directions to enter a new order denying the motion. The plaintiffs were awarded their costs on appeal. View "L.W. v. Audi AG" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, ParaFi Digital Opportunities LP, Framework Ventures, L.P., and 1kx LP, invested in Curve, a decentralized cryptocurrency trading platform developed by Mikhail Egorov. They allege that Egorov fraudulently induced them to invest by making false promises about their stake in Curve and then canceled their investment, leading to claims of fraud, conversion, and statutory violations. Egorov, who developed Curve while living in Washington and later moved to Switzerland, formed Swiss Stake GmbH to manage Curve. The investment agreements included Swiss law and forum selection clauses.The San Francisco County Superior Court granted Egorov’s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Egorov did not purposefully avail himself of California’s benefits. The court noted that the plaintiffs initiated contact and negotiations, and the agreements specified Swiss jurisdiction. The court also denied plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding that plaintiffs did not demonstrate that discovery would likely produce evidence establishing jurisdiction.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Egorov’s contacts with California were insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction, as the plaintiffs had solicited the investment and Egorov had not directed any activities toward California. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ unilateral actions could not establish jurisdiction and that the agreements’ Swiss law and forum selection clauses further supported the lack of jurisdiction. The court also upheld the denial of jurisdictional discovery, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. View "ParaFi Digital Opportunities v. Egorov" on Justia Law

The City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority challenged a decision by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to issue a phase I driverless autonomous vehicle (AV) deployment permit to Waymo, LLC for fared passenger service in San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County. The petitioners argued that the PUC failed to follow the law and disregarded significant public safety issues. However, the record showed that the PUC considered and responded to the safety concerns raised by the petitioners, noting that few incidents involved Waymo driverless AVs, each was minor, and none involved injuries.The PUC had previously issued a decision establishing a pilot program for the regulation of AV passenger carriers, which included both drivered and driverless AVs. The petitioners participated in these proceedings but did not challenge the decision at that time. Waymo submitted an advice letter in December 2022 seeking a phase I driverless AV deployment permit, which was protested by the San Francisco entities. The PUC's Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division circulated a draft resolution authorizing Waymo's permit, and after considering comments and holding meetings, the PUC issued a final resolution in August 2023, authorizing Waymo to provide fared driverless AV service.The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and found that the PUC acted within its authority and did not abuse its discretion. The court noted that the PUC's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including data showing that Waymo driverless AVs had not been involved in any collisions resulting in injuries. The court also upheld the PUC's use of the advice letter process, as it was authorized by the PUC's prior decision. The court denied the relief requested by the petitioners, affirming the PUC's decision to issue the phase I driverless AV deployment permit to Waymo. View "City and County of San Francisco v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

In 1995, Lamar Love was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of his son, Gary Love. Gary, who was cared for by his grandmother, Geraldine Thomas, sustained multiple injuries while in Love's care, culminating in his death from blunt force trauma to the abdomen. Love was charged with murder, child abuse, spousal abuse, assault with a deadly weapon, and dissuading a witness. The jury convicted him of second-degree murder, spousal abuse, and one count of child abuse resulting in death, while acquitting him of the other charges.Love appealed his conviction, but it was affirmed by the appellate court. In 2022, he filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that changes to sections 188 and 189 meant he could not be convicted of murder under the current law. The trial court denied his petition, noting that the jury was not instructed on felony murder, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, aiding and abetting liability, or any theory of imputed malice.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that Love was ineligible for resentencing because he was convicted as the actual killer who personally harbored malice, not under any abrogated theory of liability. The jury instructions required a finding of express or implied malice for second-degree murder, and there was no basis for the jury to convict him using a criminal negligence standard from unrelated instructions. Thus, the court concluded that Love was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. View "People v. Love" on Justia Law