Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In November 2008, a California trial court sentenced defendant Kelly Kimble to 25 years to life under the former Three Strikes law, plus an additional year for a prior prison term enhancement. In October 2022, defendant appeared for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess., codified as Penal Code section 1172.75). At the hearing, the trial court struck defendant’s prior prison term enhancement, but otherwise left his sentence intact. Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in resentencing him under Senate Bill 483 without applying the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012)). To this the Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the sentence. View "California v. Kimble" on Justia Law

In 2018, Anaheim voters approved a Living Wage Ordinance (LWO). The LWO applied to hospitality employers in the Anaheim or Disneyland Resort areas that benefited from a “City Subsidy.” In 2019, Kathleen Grace and other plaintiffs (“Employees”) filed a class action complaint against the Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, U.S., Inc. (“Disney”) and Sodexo, Inc., and Sodexomagic, LLC (“Sodexo”) alleging a violation of the LWO (Sodexo operated restaurants in Disney’s theme parks). Disney moved for summary judgment and Sodexo joined. It was undisputed the Employees were not being paid the required minimum hourly wage under the LWO. However, Disney argued it was not covered under the LWO as a matter of law because it was not benefitting from a “City Subsidy.” The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal disagreed: “A ‘City Subsidy’ is any agreement with the city pursuant to which a person other than the city has a right to receive a rebate of transient occupancy tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, property tax or other taxes, presently or in the future, matured or unmatured.” The Court determined that through a "reimbursement agreement," Disney had the right to a rebate on transient occupancy taxes (paid by hotel guests), sales taxes (paid by consumers), and property taxes (paid by Disney), in any years when the City’s tax revenues were sufficient to meet certain bond obligations. Consequently, the Court found Disney received a “City Subsidy” within the meaning of the LWO and was therefore obligated to pay its employees the designated minimum wages. View "Grace v. The Walt Disney Company" on Justia Law

The National Center on Missing and Exploited Children reported a tip that username “mrwadleigh@sbcglobal.net” had uploaded 23 images of child pornography to an Adobe account, associated with an AT&T account. Detective DeRespini prepared a warrant application, identifying four images as child pornography and describing the images and why he believed the subjects were children. DeRespini did not attach the images. With a warrant, DeRespini learned the address of Wadleigh’s likely residence and that the Adobe and AT&T accounts were his. The search yielded 41 more images. DeRespini conducted social media searches and surveillance, confirmed Wadleigh’s residence and vehicle, and prepared a second warrant application to search Wadleigh’s person, vehicle, and residence; to search for and seize his electronic devices and stored digital media; and to conduct a forensic examination of seized items. DeRespini restated his experience and training and repeated the description of the original four images but did not include actual images. With the second warrant, officers seized items that contained additional child pornography.Wadleigh unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence. The court of appeal affirmed. The warrant applications contained sufficient factual detail to establish probable cause. DeRespini misdescribed one of the images and testified that he was taught not to include images of suspected child pornography in warrant applications; the court noted that the preferable course is to include the actual images purporting to establish probable cause. View "People v. Wadleigh" on Justia Law

This appeal was the second relating to a suit brought by the City of Hesperia (the City) against respondents Lake Arrowhead Community Services District and the Board of Directors of Lake Arrowhead Community Services District (jointly, the District) regarding a proposed 0.96-megawatt solar photovoltaic project (the Solar Project) that the District had been planning to develop on six acres of a 350-acre property it owned, known as the Hesperia Farms Property. The Hesperia Farms Property was located within the City’s municipal boundary and was generally subject to the City’s zoning regulations. The District first approved its Solar Project in December 2015, after determining that the project was either absolutely exempt from the City’s zoning regulations under Government Code section 53091, or qualifiedly exempt under Government Code section 53096. The City sought a writ of mandate prohibiting the District from further pursuing the Solar Project. In Hesperia I, the Court of Appeal determined the District’s Solar Project was not exempt from the City’s zoning regulations under Government Code section 53091’s absolute exemption, or under Government Code section 53096’s qualified exemption. The Court concluded, however, that Government Code section 52096’s qualified exemption did not apply to the District’s approval of the Solar Project only because the District had failed to provide substantial evidence to support its conclusion that there was no other feasible alternative to its proposed location for the Solar Project. This result left open the possibility that the District could undertake further analyses and show that there was no feasible alternative to the Solar Project’s proposed location in order to avoid application of the City’s zoning ordinances. A few months after the District made its second no-feasible-alternative determination with respect to the Solar Project, the City filed a second petition for writ of mandate and complaint challenging the Solar Project. The trial court ultimately denied the City’s second petition. When the City appealed, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not err in rejecting the City’s petition for writ of mandate. View "City of Hesperia v. Lake Arrowhead Community Services Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Greenville Rancheria (Greenville) was a sovereign Indian tribe that owned administrative and medical offices (property) in the City of Red Bluff. Following a contested election, defendant Angela Martin was elected as Greenville’s chairperson, which included the authority to act as Greenville’s chief executive officer. After her election, Martin, along with approximately 20 people, including defendants Andrea Cazares-Diego, Andrew Gonzales, Hallie Hugo, Elijah Martin, and Adrian Hugo, entered the property and refused to leave despite the remaining members of the tribal council ordering them to leave and removing Martin’s authority as chairperson under Greenville’s constitution. Because of defendants’ failure to vacate the property, Greenville filed a verified emergency complaint for trespass and injunctive relief. The trial court granted Greenville a temporary restraining order, but later granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Greenville appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed: defendants did not point to any authority demonstrating the federal government’s intent to preempt state law or deprive state courts of subject matter jurisdiction in property disputes between tribal members occurring on lands outside tribal trust lands. "To conclude we lack jurisdiction over property disputes between tribal members on nontribal lands would limit tribal members’ access to state court, especially considering California courts have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Public Law 280 over property disputes between tribal members on tribal trust lands. (Section 1360.) Consequently, the state court has jurisdiction to hear Greenville’s dispute against defendants regarding land it owns in fee simple that is not held in trust by the federal government." View "Rancheria v. Martin" on Justia Law

Rosenberg-Wohl had a State Farm homeowners insurance policy, covering her San Francisco home. The policy required lawsuits to be “started within one year after the date of loss or damage.” In late 2018 or early 2019, Rosenberg-Wohl noticed that an elderly neighbor twice stumbled on Rosenberg-Wohl’s outside staircase and learned that the pitch of the stairs had changed. The staircase needed to be replaced. In April 2019, Rosenberg-Wohl authorized the work and contacted State Farm. On August 9, she submitted a claim for the money she had spent. On August 26, State Farm denied the claim. Rosenberg-Wohl’s husband, an attorney, later contacted State Farm “to see if anything could be done.” In August 2020 a State Farm adjuster said it had reopened the claim. Days later, it was denied.In October 2020, Rosenberg-Wohl filed suit, alleging breach of the policy and bad faith. That lawsuit was removed to federal court and was dismissed based on the one-year limitation provision. It is currently on appeal. Another action alleges a violation of California’s unfair competition law. The California court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of that suit, rejecting arguments that the one-year limitation provision does not apply to the unfair competition claim, and that State Farm waived the limitation provision. View "Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder in the stabbing death of a man during a street brawl. The jury in Defendant’s case also found a sentencing enhancement alleging that he personally used a knife to be not true. Defendant appealed for a third time, arguing, among other things, that substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s ruling he could still be convicted of murder as the actual killer.   The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s summary denial of that petition and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing per section 1172.6. The court agreed that the court erred in finding that Defendant stabbed the victim to death after the jury found not true an allegation that Defendant personally used a knife. The court explained that it is appropriate to remand the matter for a new hearing to determine whether the prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant is guilty under a permissible theory of murder. The court directed that in doing so, the court shall not make any finding or rely on any evidence which contradicts the jury’s finding that the personal use of a knife sentencing enhancement was not true. View "P. v. Arnold" on Justia Law

Defendant Avco Corporation, a manufacturer of airplane components, appealed the denial of its summary judgment motion, which was based on the statute of repose enacted by Congress as part of the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA). Defendant contended a denial of summary judgment in this context constituted an appealable collateral order under California’s collateral order doctrine. To this, the Court of Appeal concluded it did not and dismissed the appeal. View "Longobardo v. Avco Corporation" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder; the jury rejected the special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the course of a robbery. In 2019, Defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s petition on the grounds that Defendant was ineligible for resentencing because he aided and abetted the murder and acted with malice. On appeal, Defendant does not challenge the trial court’s findings but argued he should have been resentenced without a hearing under the streamlined procedure described in section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(2), which applies when “there was a prior finding by a court or jury that the petitioner did not act with reckless indifference to human life or was not a major participant in the felony.” He asserted that the jury’s rejection of the special circumstance constitutes such a finding, regardless of any other viable grounds for his conviction.
The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that Section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(2) does not mandate vacatur of a murder conviction and resentencing when there are viable bases for murder liability independent of a rejected special circumstances allegation. Section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(2) provides a mechanism to streamline the process of resentencing only if it is clear the petitioner is otherwise eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. View "P. v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Thai was an IBM employee. To accomplish his duties, he required, among other things, internet access, telephone service, a telephone headset, and a computer and accessories. On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom signed the COVID-19 “stay home” order. IBM directed Thai and thousands of his coworkers to continue performing their regular job duties from home. Thai and his coworkers personally paid for the services and equipment necessary to do their jobs while working from home. IBM never reimbursed its employees for these expenses.The court of appeal reversed the dismissal of a complaint under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Labor Code 2699). Section 2802(a)) requires an employer to reimburse an employee “for all necessary expenditures . . . incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” The trial court’s conclusion that the Governor’s order was an intervening cause of the work-from-home expenses that absolved IBM of liability under section 2802 is inconsistent with the statutory language. The work-from-home expenses were inherent to IBM’s business and the work performed was for the benefit of IBM. View "Thai v. International Business Machines Corp." on Justia Law