Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Gerry Serrano, a police officer for the City of Santa Ana, took a leave of absence to serve as president of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association. The Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) determined that certain special pay additives Serrano received before and during his service as Association president could not be included in his pension. The Administrative Board of CalPERS and the Superior Court of Sacramento County affirmed the exclusion of most of these pay additives from Serrano’s pension. Serrano appealed, arguing that Government Code section 3558.8 mandates he cannot lose any compensation, including pensionable compensation, while serving as the Association president. He also challenged the specific exclusion of a confidential premium and holiday pay from his pensionable compensation.The Superior Court of Sacramento County denied Serrano’s petition for writ of administrative mandamus, which sought to vacate the Board’s decision and include all pay additives in his retirement calculation. Serrano then appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that section 3558.8 did not require the compensation Serrano earned as a police sergeant to be entirely pensionable while he served as Association president. The court concluded that the confidential premium was not pensionable because it constituted nonpensionable overtime and did not meet the regulatory definition for the confidentiality premium. Additionally, the court found that Serrano’s holiday pay was not pensionable because he was not required to work on holidays, as required by the relevant regulation. The court’s decision was based on the interpretation of the Retirement Law and the specific definitions and requirements for pensionable compensation under that law. View "Serrano v. Public Employees' Retirement System" on Justia Law

Glenn and Geneanne Maniago filed a lawsuit against Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, Inc. (DCCMG) and Dr. Praveen Panguluri, asserting five causes of action: negligence, loss of consortium, assault, battery, and unfair business practices. Glenn, a scrub technologist, was exposed to HIV patient’s blood during a procedure due to Dr. Panguluri’s actions. The complaint did not allege that Glenn contracted HIV but claimed harm from the exposure.The Superior Court of Riverside County sustained demurrers to most of the claims with leave to amend, overruled the demurrer to Glenn’s negligence claim, and struck the punitive damages allegations. The Maniagos did not request oral argument and did not appear for the hearing. Subsequently, they voluntarily dismissed their entire action with prejudice to expedite an appeal of the adverse rulings.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal from a voluntary dismissal entered by the clerk at the plaintiffs’ request without a final judicial determination of their claims. The court emphasized that a voluntary dismissal by a plaintiff is a ministerial act and not appealable. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the appropriate vehicle for challenging interlocutory rulings is a petition for writ of mandate, not an appeal from a voluntary dismissal. View "Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants' Medical Group" on Justia Law

John Lowry, a harbor patrol officer, suffered physical and psychiatric injuries, including PTSD, from a workplace accident. His psychiatrist deemed him unfit to return to work, and the Port San Luis Harbor District (the District) indicated that his only option was retirement. Lowry applied for disability retirement, but the District denied his application, stating insufficient information to determine disability. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) also denied his application, and the District terminated his employment, claiming he voluntarily resigned, which was later admitted to be untrue.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the District, concluding that Lowry was not eligible for relief under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) because he could not perform his essential job duties with or without reasonable accommodations. The court found that disability retirement does not qualify as a term, condition, or privilege of employment under FEHA.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the denial of disability retirement payments is not an adverse employment action under FEHA. Disability retirement payments serve as income replacement for employees who can no longer work and do not facilitate continued employment, job performance, or advancement opportunities. The court concluded that an individual who is not a qualified employee cannot bring a disability discrimination claim under FEHA for the denial of disability retirement payments. The judgment in favor of the District was affirmed. View "Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist." on Justia Law

Packers Sanitation Services Ltd., LLC (Packers) employed Jose A. Parra Rodriguez (Parra) in California from April 2019 to July 2021. In February 2022, Parra filed a complaint against Packers under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of the Labor Code and California Code of Regulations. Packers moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement Parra allegedly signed, which included a clause for binding individual arbitration. Parra opposed the motion, arguing he did not recall signing the agreement, his PAGA claims lacked an individual component, and the claims fell under exceptions to arbitration.The Superior Court of Imperial County held an evidentiary hearing and found Parra had signed the agreement. However, the court denied the motion to compel arbitration, interpreting "current law" to mean the law as it stood in 2019, when Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC held PAGA claims were not subject to arbitration. The court concluded the parties had not agreed to arbitrate PAGA claims at all.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. Packers argued that under Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Parra’s individual PAGA claim should be compelled to arbitration, and non-individual claims should be dismissed. Parra contended his complaint did not include individual PAGA claims, citing Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc., which held a plaintiff could forgo individual relief and bring a representative PAGA action.The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing with Parra that his complaint did not assert individual PAGA claims. The court found that Parra had not sought individual PAGA relief and thus, there were no individual claims to compel to arbitration. The court did not address whether a PAGA action must include an individual claim, as this issue was not ripe for consideration in this appeal. View "Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services" on Justia Law

A hospital in Siskiyou County, California, filed a lawsuit against the County of Siskiyou and other defendants, challenging the practice of bringing individuals with psychiatric emergencies to its emergency department under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. The hospital argued that it was not equipped or licensed to provide the necessary psychiatric care and sought to prevent the county from bringing such patients to its facility unless they had a physical emergency condition. The hospital also sought reimbursement for the costs associated with holding these patients.The Siskiyou County Superior Court denied the hospital's motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to stop the county from bringing psychiatric patients to its emergency department. The court found that the hospital had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that the burden on the county and the potential harm to the patients outweighed the hospital's concerns.The hospital's complaint included several causes of action, including violations of Medicaid laws, disability discrimination laws, mental health parity laws, and section 17000 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The hospital also alleged breach of an implied-in-fact contract for the costs incurred in providing post-stabilization services to psychiatric patients. The trial court sustained demurrers to the complaint without leave to amend, finding that the hospital failed to identify any clear legal mandate that the county or the Department of Health Care Services had violated.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal. The appellate court concluded that the hospital had not identified any mandatory and ministerial duty that the county or the department had violated, which is necessary to obtain a writ of mandate. The court also found that the hospital's breach of contract claim failed because there were no allegations of mutual consent to an implied contract. Consequently, the hospital's appeal from the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction was dismissed as moot. View "Siskiyou Hospital v. County of Siskiyou" on Justia Law

Matthew V. Herron filed a petition for writ of mandate against the San Diego Unified Port District and the Coronado Yacht Club, alleging that the lease of coastal public trust land to the private club violated the public trust doctrine, the San Diego Unified Port Act, the Public Resources Code, and the Port’s Master Plan. Herron claimed that the lease was executed without public notice or competitive bidding and requested the court to compel the Port District to comply with proper procedures and award the lease to a qualified applicant who would operate the property for public benefit.The Superior Court of San Diego County sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the Port District’s discretionary decisions under a writ for traditional mandamus and that the time for filing a writ for administrative mandamus had expired. The court dismissed Herron’s petition with prejudice, leading to Herron’s appeal.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Herron failed to establish a claim for traditional mandamus because the Port District’s decision to lease the land involved discretionary authority, not a ministerial duty. The court also found that Herron’s petition for administrative mandamus was untimely, as it was filed more than four years after the lease became final, exceeding the 90-day statutory limit. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that Herron was not entitled to relief under either theory and affirmed the dismissal of his petition. View "Herron v. San Diego Unified Port District" on Justia Law

Angelica Ramirez sued her former employer, Charter Communications, Inc., under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful discharge. Charter moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement signed by Ramirez during her onboarding process. The trial court found the agreement contained unconscionable provisions and refused to enforce it.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found the arbitration agreement to be a contract of adhesion and identified several substantively unconscionable provisions, including shortened filing periods for claims, improper allocation of attorney fees, and lack of mutuality in claims subject to arbitration. The court denied Charter's motion to compel arbitration. Charter appealed, and a different panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the agreement contained multiple unconscionable provisions.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case and concurred that three provisions were substantively unconscionable but remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal to reconsider whether the unconscionable provisions could be severed from the agreement. On remand, the Court of Appeal concluded that severing the unconscionable provisions would not further the interests of justice. The court found that the agreement's central purpose was tainted with illegality and that the multiple unconscionable provisions indicated a systematic effort by Charter to impose arbitration in a manner that favored the employer. Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's refusal to enforce the arbitration agreement. View "Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

Scott Packard (Scott) appealed an order granting judgment in favor of Gregory Roy Packard (Greg), as trustee of the Newton Roy Packard Trust, on Scott’s petition to reform an amendment to the trust. Scott argued that the probate court erred in finding his petition constituted a trust contest subject to a 120-day statute of limitations under Probate Code section 16061.7.The Superior Court of San Diego County had granted Greg’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Scott’s petition was a trust contest and thus barred by the statute of limitations. The court found that the handwritten interlineation in the trust amendment was unambiguous and that Scott’s petition effectively sought to invalidate this amendment, constituting a contest to the trust.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Scott’s petition was not a trust contest but rather a request to reform the trust to correct an alleged mistake in the trustor’s expression of intent. The court held that Scott’s petition was not subject to the 120-day statute of limitations for trust contests. The court emphasized that reformation petitions, which seek to correct a mistake to reflect the true intent of the trustor, do not constitute contests to the trust.The appellate court reversed the probate court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court directed the probate court to deny Greg’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, allowing Scott the opportunity to prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence. Scott was awarded his costs on appeal. View "Packard v. Packard" on Justia Law

In March 2016, Paul Palalaua Tuilaepa filed his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, claiming his 1987 death sentence violated Atkins v. Virginia because he was intellectually disabled. He provided declarations from experts diagnosing him with an intellectual disability and another declaration recanting flawed testimony from his original trial. In November 2016, California voters enacted Proposition 66, which aimed to expedite death penalty appeals and postconviction proceedings. The trial court concluded Tuilaepa’s petition was procedurally barred under section 1509 and did not state a prima facie case for relief based on intellectual disability.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Tuilaepa’s habeas petition in December 2020, ruling it was procedurally barred due to substantial delay and did not state a prima facie case for relief. The court found the expert declarations insufficient and inconsistent with other evidence in the record. Tuilaepa appealed, and the California Court of Appeal granted a certificate of appealability on whether the superior court erred in dismissing the petition as successive and without issuing an order to show cause.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and concluded that section 1509, subdivision (d), applied retroactively to Tuilaepa’s petition. The court found that Tuilaepa’s petition was not procedurally barred because he established a prima facie case for relief based on intellectual disability. The court reversed the superior court’s order and remanded the case with directions to issue an order to show cause on Tuilaepa’s Atkins claim. View "In re Tuilaepa" on Justia Law

In this case, Joely Ng filed a complaint against Los Alamitos Medical Center and several doctors, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death following the death of her husband, Kenneth Ng. Kenneth was admitted to the Medical Center due to a malfunction of his G-tube, which was improperly placed by Dr. McMahon. Subsequent negligence by other doctors led to Kenneth developing sepsis and dying three months later. Joely Ng sought noneconomic damages for both wrongful death and a survival claim.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the Medical Center's motion to strike portions of Ng's complaint that sought two separate caps on noneconomic damages under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). The court reasoned that the wrongful death claim was not separate from the medical negligence claim and thus could not be subject to a separate MICRA cap. The court denied leave to amend but allowed for the possibility of future amendments if Ng could allege facts supporting the claims as separate and distinct.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court concluded that wrongful death and survival claims are separate and distinct, even when based on the same incident of medical malpractice. Therefore, Ng is entitled to seek two separate MICRA caps for noneconomic damages. The court granted Ng's petition, directing the trial court to vacate its previous order and issue a new order denying the Medical Center's motion to strike. View "Ng v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law