Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott successfully moved to strike a defamation complaint filed against her by a former political rival, Cory Briggs, under the California anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. Elliott spent the next seven months fruitlessly trying to collect on the unsatisfied judgment. She then filed a verified memorandum of costs claiming $13,789.10 in postjudgment collection costs, including $12,941.20 in attorney’s fees and $847.90 in other costs. The trial court awarded her the claimed costs, as well as $2,294.07 in postjudgment interest. Briggs appealed the cost award. Finding that the trial court properly awarded Elliott all of the costs identified in the memorandum of costs, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Briggs v. Elliott" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court entered in favor of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) on Plaintiffs' purported class action complaint, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that Plaintiffs' claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.Plaintiffs brought this complaint alleging that a tiered-rate water structure employed by EMBUD to determine the cost of residential and commercial water service in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties violated Cal. Const. art. XIII D, 6(b). The trial court sustained EBMUD's demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the applicable statute of limitations had run, and therefore, the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer. View "Campana v. East Bay Municipal Utility District" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Ratilal Shah sued the California Department of Transportation and the State Merit Award Board (Board), alleging the Board wrongfully denied him cash awards for suggestions that saved the state money. The California Department of Human Resources (CalHR), acting on behalf of the Board, filed a demurrer, claiming the action was barred by the limitations period in Government Code section 19815.8. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint as to the Board. On appeal, Shah contended the trial court applied the wrong statute of limitations and that, applying the proper statute of limitations, the action not time-barred. Finding no error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "Shah v. Dept. of Human Resources" on Justia Law

An arbitrator issued subpoenas to compel two individuals, who were not parties to the arbitration, to appear and produce documents at a hearing specially set “for the limited purpose of receiving documents” from them, or to download the documents to a website controlled by counsel for the party requesting the subpoenas. The subpoenas provided that after the production of documents, the “hearing” would be adjourned to a later date, at which time the subpoenaed nonparties would be summoned to appear and testify. The date for their compliance with the document production was nearly 12 months before the scheduled arbitration hearing on the merits. After the nonparties refused to comply with the subpoenas, the arbitrator compelled compliance. The nonparties petitioned the trial court to vacate the order compelling their compliance with the subpoenas. The trial court denied the petition to vacate the order, concluding the subpoenas were statutorily authorized “hearing” subpoenas under California Arbitration Act section 1282.6, not subpoenas issued for the purposes of discovery. The nonparties argued the judgment should be reversed because the subpoenas were improper discovery subpoenas, despite being labeled “hearing” subpoenas. Under the specific facts of this case, the Court of Appeal agreed with the nonparties. View "McConnell v. Advantest America" on Justia Law

Defendant inmates Jesse Farias and Fernando Miranda were found guilty of various charges stemming from their attack on a fellow inmate. Defendants, their counsel, and the State then agreed to allow the trial court to determine the truth of allegations that they had previously been convicted of crimes that constituted both serious felonies under Penal Code section 667(a), and strikes under Penal Code sections 667(e)(2) and 1170.12(c)(2), without their appearances. The trial court expressly found the prior convictions were for serious felonies under section 667 (a), but made no mention of the allegations under sections 667(e)(2) and 1170.12(c)(2). However, at the sentencing hearing, the court imposed sentences on the defendants as if it had found the strike allegations to be true. Had all parties attended the hearing on the priors, the Court of Appeal surmised someone in the group would have requested the court clearly make an oral record of its findings. Instead, the record was silent "with little way to know if the error was purely clerical in nature or if the trial court, in fact, failed to consider the strike allegations at all." On appeal, both defendants argued the court could not impose a strike sentence here, because it made no strike finding. To this, the Court of Appeal agreed a strike sentence was not appropriate, and vacated the sentence without prejudice for the trial court to correct the record. In addition to joining Farias’s challenge to the strike sentence, Miranda also challenged the trial court’s finding that two of his prior convictions were for serious felonies on grounds that those findings are not supported by substantial evidence. While the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s finding on one of the two subject prior convictions, the Court agreed with Miranda that, considering changes to the law governing gang offenses, the trial court lacked substantial evidence to support its finding that his prior conviction under section 186.22(a), was for a serious felony as contemplated by section 667(a). Both Defendants argued that amendments to Penal Code section 654 made after the trial court entered its sentence applied here; to this the Court remanded the case to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion under the amended law. View "California v. Farias" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal denied a writ of mandate sought by Petitioner to compel the superior court to dismiss the allegation that he committed various crimes "for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members," holding that Petitioner was not entitled to the writ.While Petitioner awaited trial, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 333 altering the requirements for imposing the gang enhancement by altering the proof necessary to establish the existence of a criminal street gang. Thereafter, Petitioner moved to dismiss the gang allegation against him. The trial court denied the motion and, instead, reopened the preliminary hearing to allow the People to offer additional evidence to satisfy the new gang enhancement statute. The Court of Appeal denied Petitioner's mandamus petition, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by reopening the preliminary hearing to permit the People to address the amended gang enhancement elements because the defects in the evidence were minor errors of omission under section 995a. View "Rodas-Gramajo v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Darrick Ocegueda was convicted by jury for first degree murder. He contended on appeal that the trial court misinstructed the jury on the theory of provocation as it related to the premeditation and deliberation elements of the offense and, relatedly, that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek a clarifying pinpoint instruction. Ocegueda argued the combination of some of the standard instructions given (CALCRIM Nos. 521, 522 & 570) might have misled the jury to believe that provocation could negate the elements of first degree murder only if it satisfied an objective, “person of average disposition” standard. Additionally, Ocegueda claimed the evidence was insufficient to support the elements of premeditation and deliberation. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Ocegueda" on Justia Law

Waqa was convicted of forcible rape after he sexually assaulted a woman in a public restroom. Because Waqa moved the victim from the restroom’s small stall to its large stall before raping her, the jury also found true an aggravated kidnapping circumstance under the One Strike law, Penal Code section 667.61, requiring a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for the rape. Waqa argued there was insufficient evidence of the aggravated kidnapping asportation element, which requires that “the movement of the victim substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim over and above that level of risk necessarily inherent in the underlying offense.”The court of appeal modified the sentence to a 15-year-to-life term. The One Strike law requires a term of 15 years to life for qualifying sexual offenses if the defendant commits a simple kidnapping of the victim. By finding the aggravated kidnapping circumstance true, the jury necessarily determined that Waqa committed a simple kidnapping, a finding that was supported by substantial evidence. Where there is insufficient evidence of a circumstance supporting a 25-year-to-life term under the One Strike law but sufficient evidence of a lesser included circumstance supporting a 15-year-to-life term, an appellate court may reduce the sentence to the lesser term. View "People v. Waqa" on Justia Law

The City of Pomona (the City) decided to allow commercial cannabis activities in specific locales within its boundaries. In doing so, the City determined it was exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Guidelines adopted to implement CEQA (Cal. Code Regs.) (Guidelines). Thus, when the City chose areas to locate commercial cannabis activities, it did not conduct additional environmental review under CEQA. Appellant wanted his storefront property included among the locales where commercial cannabis activity would be allowed. The City, however, excluded Appellant’s property. Appellant then filed a petition for writ of mandate to overturn the City’s designation of areas for permissible commercial cannabis activities. He contended the City made the decision improperly by foregoing further environmental review. The superior court denied the petition and entered judgment in favor of the City.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court held that the City properly determined that the Project is Exempt per Guidelines Section 15183 and requires no additional environmental review. The court explained that substantial evidence shows the Project’s proposed commercial cannabis activities were similar to or “consistent” with existing land uses or development density established by the 2014 EIR and General Plan Update and thus meet the statutory exemption per Guidelines section 15183. Further, the court found that substantial evidence—the General Plan Update, the 2014 EIR, the Project, the DOS, and Findings of Consistency—shows the Project “has no project-specific effects” that are “peculiar” to it. View "Lucas v. City of Pomona" on Justia Law

To reduce wildfire risk on a large swath of hilly, forested, and fire-prone land on the University’s Hill Campus, the Regents prepared and approved a plan for vegetation removal projects. The Regents prepared and certified an environmental impact report (EIR) describing the projects and analyzing the plan’s environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, 21000). Two conservation organizations filed petitions challenging the adequacy of the EIR’s description of four vegetation removal projects and its discussion of certain environmental impacts. The trial court concluded the project descriptions were “uncertain and ambiguous” because the EIR provided “vague conceptual criteria” but no concrete information on how the “criteria will be implemented.”The court of appeal reversed. The challenged vegetation removal project descriptions comply with CEQA, and the EIR contains sufficient information to analyze the projects’ environmental impacts. Viewed as an informational document, the EIR includes sufficient detail to enable the public to understand the environmental impacts associated with the plan to remove vegetation in specific locations on the Hill Campus to reduce wildfire risk. It sufficiently identifies and analyzes alternatives to the project. The evidence amply supports the conclusion that it was not reasonably feasible to prepare a tree inventory in connection with the EIR. View "Claremont Canyon Conservancy v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law