Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Lavell Calvin White was convicted of first-degree murder in 2018 based on a felony-murder theory, with a special circumstance finding that the murder occurred during a robbery. The jury found that White was a major participant in the felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP). White later petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, which the trial court granted, reducing his sentence to a two-year determinate term for attempted second-degree robbery.The trial court's decision to grant White's petition for resentencing effectively overruled the jury's special circumstance finding. The court concluded that the jury's finding had no preclusive effect because the jury had not been properly instructed on the factors established in People v. Banks and People v. Clark. The People sought a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court's order and reinstate the original murder conviction and LWOP sentence.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and granted the People's petition. The court held that the jury's special circumstance finding should have preclusive effect in the section 1172.6 resentencing proceedings. The court noted that the jury's finding, made after the Banks and Clark decisions, was binding and that the trial court erred in not giving it preclusive effect. The appellate court directed the trial court to vacate its order redesignating White's conviction and to reinstate the original murder conviction, special circumstance finding, and LWOP sentence. View "People v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Matthew Gee, a former University of Southern California (USC) football player, died in 2018 at age 49. The coroner attributed his death to the combined toxic effects of alcohol and cocaine, along with other health issues. His widow, Alana Gee, donated his brain to Boston University’s CTE Center, where it was determined he had Stage II Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). Alana Gee filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), alleging that CTE was a substantial factor in her husband's death and that the NCAA negligently failed to take reasonable steps to reduce his risk of contracting CTE.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled in favor of the NCAA, finding that the assumption of risk doctrine applied. The jury concluded that the NCAA did not unreasonably increase the risks to Matthew Gee over and above those inherent in college football, nor did it unreasonably fail to take measures that would have minimized the risks without altering the essential nature of the sport. Alana Gee appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in applying the assumption of risk doctrine and in refusing her proposed jury instruction on the liability of an unincorporated association for the acts of its members.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that the assumption of risk doctrine applied because repeated head hits are an inherent risk of college football. The court also found that any instructional error regarding the NCAA’s responsibility for the actions or inactions of its members was harmless. The court concluded that the NCAA did not have a duty to mitigate the inherent risks of the sport and that the failure to take additional safety measures did not increase those inherent risks. View "Gee v. National Collegiate Athletic Assocation" on Justia Law

Mark Stokes was severely injured in the parking lot of Levi’s Stadium after a San Francisco 49ers game on October 7, 2018, when he was punched twice by David Gonzales following an altercation involving a kicked bottle. Stokes sustained a brain injury and later died in March 2021. Gonzales pleaded no contest to assault and was sentenced to one year in county jail. Stokes and his wife initially filed a complaint against Forty Niners Stadium Management Co., LLC, and Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc., alleging negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium. After Stokes’s death, his wife, on behalf of their children, continued the lawsuit.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, concluding that there were no triable issues of fact regarding the breach of duty or causation. The court found that the plaintiffs could not establish that the defendants’ actions or inactions were a substantial factor in causing Stokes’s injuries.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to present substantial, nonspeculative evidence that the defendants’ alleged negligence was a substantial factor in causing Stokes’s injuries. The court emphasized that the incident occurred suddenly and quickly, making it speculative to assert that increased security measures would have prevented the assault. The court also found that the expert opinions provided by the plaintiffs were speculative and did not establish a causal connection between the defendants’ actions and the injury. Thus, the judgments in favor of the defendants were affirmed. View "Stokes v. Forty Niners Stadium Management Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jeanie Reese, acting as conservator for Leoma Musil, filed a lawsuit against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) and other defendants, alleging violations of the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (HBOR) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The dispute arose when SPS recorded a notice of trustee’s sale while Reese’s loan modification application was pending. Reese claimed that SPS violated former section 2923.6 by proceeding with foreclosure actions during the loan modification process.The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, but this decision was reversed on appeal, with the appellate court finding a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Reese had submitted a complete loan modification application. Upon remand, Reese amended her complaint, but the trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that SPS had not violated former section 2923.6 because it recorded a new notice of trustee’s sale and sold the property more than a year after denying the loan modification application and Reese’s subsequent appeal.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that SPS’s actions did not constitute a violation of former section 2923.6, as the new notice of trustee’s sale recorded in May 2018 cured any previous violation. The court also found that the 18-month delay between the denial of the loan modification application and the new notice of trustee’s sale rendered the initial violation immaterial. Consequently, the court concluded that Reese’s complaint did not state a cause of action under former section 2923.6, and the trial court’s decision to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend was appropriate. View "Reese v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc." on Justia Law

Sentinel Energy Center, LLC owns a power plant in North Palm Springs and hired DGC Operations, LLC (OPS) to manage and operate the plant. In 2017, during annual maintenance, five OPS employees failed to follow the new depressurization protocol for the fuel filter skid, leading to an explosion that killed Daniel Collins. Collins's family sued Diamond Generating Corporation (DGC), which has a 50% indirect ownership in Sentinel and is the parent company of OPS, claiming DGC's negligence in safety oversight led to Collins's death.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied DGC's request to instruct the jury on the Privette doctrine, which generally shields a hirer from liability for injuries to an independent contractor's employees. The jury found DGC 97% at fault and awarded the plaintiffs over $150 million. DGC's motions for nonsuit and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, based on the Privette doctrine, were also denied.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court declined to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict to DGC, citing unresolved factual questions about whether DGC retained control over the plant and negligently exercised that control. However, the court found that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the Privette doctrine and its exceptions, which could have led to a more favorable outcome for DGC. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial with instructions to include the Privette doctrine and its exceptions. View "Collins v. Diamond Generating Corp." on Justia Law

Pamela Pollock sued her supervisor, Michael Kelso, in 2018 for sexual harassment and racial discrimination, alleging that Kelso asked her for sexual intercourse in 2016 and, after she rejected him, promoted less qualified individuals of other races to positions she sought. The trial court initially ruled that Pollock’s suit was time-barred, a decision which was affirmed by the appellate court. However, in 2021, the California Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the statute of limitations begins when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the adverse promotion decision, that the defense bears the burden on this issue, and that costs or fees on appeal cannot be awarded to a prevailing defendant without determining the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.Following the Supreme Court’s directions, the appellate court remanded the case and ordered costs for Pollock. Pollock then moved for attorney fees in the trial court, which awarded her $493,577.10. Kelso appealed this award. Before the trial date, Kelso and Pollock settled the bulk of their case, with Pollock moving to dismiss her underlying case with prejudice except for the attorney fee award, which Kelso was appealing. The trial court retained jurisdiction regarding the fee award.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court denied Pollock’s motion to dismiss Kelso’s appeal, affirming that Kelso was appealing from a final collateral order. On the merits, the court affirmed the fee award, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining Pollock as the prevailing party and in the amount awarded. The court found that the trial court’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the fee award, including the use of a 1.8 multiplier, was reasonable. View "Pollock v. Kelso" on Justia Law

In 2008, Eddie Arturo Bravo pleaded no contest to multiple charges, including rape and sex offenses involving a minor, in exchange for a 20-year prison sentence. The original judgment included a stayed enhancement for a prior prison term. In 2023, Bravo sought resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 after the Legislature eliminated certain sentencing enhancements. The trial court resentenced Bravo, striking the prison prior enhancement and other enhancements, but maintained the 20-year aggregate sentence.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially imposed the agreed-upon 20-year sentence, which included upper terms for specific counts and concurrent middle terms for others. Bravo was paroled in 2022. Following legislative changes, Bravo requested resentencing, arguing for a reduced sentence based on his rehabilitation and lack of public safety risk. The trial court held a hearing, considered the arguments, and ultimately struck the stayed enhancement but maintained the original sentence length.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the fact the enhancement was originally stayed did not preclude resentencing under section 1172.75. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's resentencing decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Bravo received a lesser sentence as required by section 1172.75 because the stayed enhancement was eliminated, even though the aggregate term remained the same. The court also found no error in the trial court's application of section 1385 or section 1170, and it upheld the decision to impose upper terms for certain counts. The judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Bravo" on Justia Law

In 2012, Jason Robert Hodge pleaded no contest to three felony counts of battery and assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to 21 years in prison. On January 5, 2024, Hodge filed two requests in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County: a motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act and a request for resentencing under section 1172.1. The trial court denied both requests in a single order on February 6, 2024, stating it declined to exercise its discretion to recall Hodge’s sentence.Hodge appealed the trial court's decision. His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo, raising no arguable issues, and Hodge filed a supplemental brief without addressing the appealability issue. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, requested briefing on the appealability of the trial court’s denial of Hodge’s request for resentencing under section 1172.1, considering the Supreme Court’s opinion in People v. Loper.The Court of Appeal concluded that neither component of the trial court’s order was appealable. The court held that the trial court’s decision not to exercise its discretion to recall Hodge’s sentence did not affect Hodge’s substantial rights under section 1237, subdivision (b), because the trial court had no statutory obligation to act on Hodge’s request. Additionally, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider Hodge’s motion under the Racial Justice Act, as incarcerated defendants whose convictions are final may only raise claims under that act in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "P. v. Hodge" on Justia Law

Santa Rita Holdings, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) from the County of Santa Barbara to cultivate cannabis on a 2.54-acre parcel owned by Kim Hughes. The only access to this parcel is via a private easement over land owned by JCCrandall, LLC. JCCrandall objected to the use of its easement for cannabis transportation, citing federal law and the terms of the easement deed. Despite these objections, the County granted the CUP, and the County’s Board of Supervisors upheld this decision on appeal.JCCrandall then petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate, challenging the County’s determination that the easement provided adequate access for the project. JCCrandall argued that the use of the easement for cannabis activities was prohibited by federal law and the easement deed, that state law required its consent for such use, and that the road did not meet County standards. The trial court denied the petition, applying the substantial evidence standard and finding the County’s decision supported by substantial evidence.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the trial court should have applied the independent judgment standard because JCCrandall’s right to exclude unauthorized persons from its property is a fundamental vested right. The court further held that under federal law, cannabis is illegal, and thus, JCCrandall cannot be forced to allow its property to be used for cannabis transportation. The court also found that the use of the easement for cannabis activities exceeded the scope of the easement, which was created when cannabis was illegal under both state and federal law. The judgment was reversed, and costs were awarded to JCCrandall. View "JCCrandall, LLC v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between neighboring property owners, Eberhard and Ursula Schneider (plaintiffs) and Karla S. Lane (defendant), over an easement used by Lane to access her property. The easement was initially destroyed by flooding in 2002, leading to a 2011 judgment that established the easement burdened the entire servient tenement owned by the Schneiders. The court relocated the easement further inland on the Schneiders' property. After another flooding incident in 2018 damaged the relocated easement, the Schneiders filed an action for quiet title and declaratory relief, while Lane filed a cross-complaint for declaratory relief.The Superior Court of Alpine County granted Lane summary judgment against the Schneiders' complaint, ruling it was barred by res judicata. At trial on Lane's cross-complaint, the court again relocated the easement further inland but ruled that Lane was responsible for stabilizing the riverbank to prevent further erosion under Civil Code section 845.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to relocate the easement but reversed the ruling that Lane was responsible for stabilizing the riverbank. The appellate court held that section 845 requires the dominant tenement owner to maintain the easement in good repair but does not obligate them to construct new improvements, such as a riverbank stabilization project, separate from the easement to protect it from potential future harm. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in selecting the new easement route that imposed the least burden on the servient tenement. View "Schneider v. Lane" on Justia Law