Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A trial court disapproved certain disbursements made by the trustee of a special needs trust, and it surcharged the trustee. The trustee appeals, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the wrong standard for determining whether the disbursements were for the trust beneficiary’s special needs and disallowing expenditures as offsets for the surcharges. Because the trial court abused its discretion by applying the wrong definition of "special needs," the Court of Appeal remanded for the court to exercise its discretion under the proper standard. "In reaching this conclusion, however, we do not mean to be understood as holding that the trust instrument placed no limits on the types of distributions the trustee could make." View "McGee v. State Dept. of Health Care Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kamiya Perry appealed a judgment entered in favor of defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (Kia) after a jury found in favor of Kia in her automobile defect trial. On appeal, she argued: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury that Kia had concealed evidence (certain engineering documents) during discovery; (2) the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of Kia’s paralegal who verified discovery requests relevant to the engineering documents; and (3) she was not given a fair trial because the jurors were required to deliberate in a small room, which, in the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, incentivized the jury to complete their deliberations quickly. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Perry v. Kia Motors America, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff obtained a $425,562 jury verdict in his favor on his claim that the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (the Department) retaliated against him for filing an internal complaint with its Equal Opportunity Office (EEO). The Department appealed, contending that four erroneous evidentiary rulings by the trial court deprived it of a fair trial.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court agreed that the trial court erred in admitting evidence about activity that occurred before the filing of his EEO complaints. The court also concluded that admission of the first EEO complaint and supplement was prejudicial and prevented the Department from receiving a fair trial. The court explained that there is no doubt that the fact that Plaintiff filed an EEO complaint for age and race discrimination is highly relevant. It is the protected activity needed for his claim; more colloquially, it provides a motive for the retaliation. The details of the discrimination are not relevant. This was not a trial about whether Plaintiff’s co-worker engaged in race or age discrimination; Plaintiff waived those claims in the prior settlement agreement. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The court wrote that it need not and does not reach the Department’s other claims of error. View "Kourounian v. Cal. Dept. of Tax & Fee Administration" on Justia Law

EBMUD, a municipal utility, provides water and wastewater services to the residents of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The plaintiffs have paid for EBMUD water service since before July 2018. In 2017, EBMUD adopted the water rates for fiscal years 2018 and 2019; in July 2019, EBUMD adopted the rates for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. The plaintiffs alleged EBMUD determines the cost of service based on the volume of water used. There are three tiers of water usage; each successive tier is charged a higher rate than the previous tier. They allege that this rate structure violates the requirement of the California Constitution article XIII D, 6(b)(3) that the amount charged for water service shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.In July 2019, plaintiffs mailed EBMUD a claim under the Government Claims Act, seeking a refund of service charges collected in violation of section 6(b) since July 17, 2018. In January 2020, after the statutory time period for response had lapsed, plaintiffs filed suit. The court of appeal affirmed dismissal without leave to amend, citing the 120-day statute of limitations (Public Utilities Code section 14402). Plaintiffs cannot avoid the statute of limitations by characterizing their claim as merely seeking a refund of excess fees. The complaint frames a challenge to the “disproportionate rate structure.” Any time requirements imposed by the Government Claims Act did not extend the limitations period. View "Campana v. East Bay Municipal Utility District" on Justia Law

RAR2 Villa Marina Center CA SPE, Inc., RAR2-Villa Marina Center CA, LLC, and Villa Marina Company, LLC (collectively, Villa entities) appealed from a judgment entered in this property tax refund action after the trial court sustained the demurrer filed by the County of Los Angeles (County) and denied the Villa entities’ summary judgment motion, upholding the decision of the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board (Board) concerning the 2011 valuation of a shopping center owned by the Villa entities. In 2011 the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office (Assessor) determined the value of the shopping center had decreased, setting the assessment roll value (roll value) at approximately $94 million. The Villa entities filed an assessment appeal with the Board seeking a further reduction of the assessed value to $48 million. On appeal, the Villa entities contend the Assessor had no authority to issue a raise letter recommending an increase in the property’s valuation more than one year after the initial assessment.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court explained that a raise letter issued under section 1609.4 providing notice, in the context of an assessment appeal, that the assessor recommends a higher valuation than the roll value is not properly characterized as a proposal by the assessor to correct the roll value to reflect a decline in the property’s value, even if the initial assessment reflected a decline in value, and therefore, the one-year limitations period under section 4731, subdivision (c), does not apply. The court agreed that the County and the Board carried out their statutory duty in adopting the higher valuation for the property. View "RAR2 Villa Marina Center CA SPE, Inc. v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

Under the California Fostering Connections to Success Act, certain dependents and wards of the juvenile court may remain under the court’s "continuing jurisdiction" and receive financial assistance as “nonminor dependents” until they turn 21 years old (Welf. & Inst. Code 303(b); 11403) under the “AB12” program.Jonathan, born in 2003, has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and other mental health and developmental conditions; he suffered a chaotic childhood characterized by neglect, abuse, and homelessness. In recommending termination of his transitional jurisdiction, Probation wrote, Jonathan wants the benefits of utilizing the program, “but his actions and behavior indicate[] he is not willing to uphold his obligations set forth in the mutual agreement or case plan.” Jonathan continued to not provide documentation of his employment or his enrollment in a training program; he deflected questions about his living situation. At two continued hearings, Jonathan was not present. The probation officer reported having texted and emailed Jonathan that week without a response and that Jonathan also missed an appointment with a transitional housing provider. The juvenile court terminated AB12 services, stating “[T]he law requires him to meet certain requirements, and he hasn’t been meeting those requirements, and he’s had multiple opportunities.”The court of appeal reversed. The juvenile court erred in terminating transition jurisdiction without considering Jonathan’s best interests. View "In re Jonathan C.M." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction after the jury found him guilty with respect to four victims of three counts of false imprisonment by violence; three counts of forcible oral copulation; three counts of forcible rape; and one count of attempted forcible rape. Defendant contended that the trial court abused its discretion and deprived him of due process by ordering him to wear a restraint belt during jury selection, which was held in an unsecured jury assembly room instead of a courtroom because of the pandemic. Further, he argued that the trial court violated his constitutional and statutory rights by receiving the jury verdicts in his absence.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the judgment of conviction, vacated the sentence, and directed the trial court to resentence Defendant per sections 654 and 1170, subdivision (b), and any other applicable ameliorative legislation. The court agreed that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring Defendant to wear a restraint belt without making an individualized finding at the time of jury selection that Defendant posed a safety or flight risk or that he was likely to disrupt the proceedings; however, the error was harmless. Further, the court held that there was no constitutional violation because Defendant’s absence during the reading of the verdicts did not interfere with his ability to defend against the charges. However, the court held that Defendant is entitled to resentencing under amended section 654 because the one-strike law does not preclude a stay under section 654. View "P. v. Govan" on Justia Law

In this labor dispute, Petitioner, the employer, filed a statement of disqualification seeking to remove the trial judge based on comments made during oral argument. However, Petitioner waited one year after the judge's comments to file the statement. The trial court determined that Petitioner waived the right to file a statement of disqualification.Finding the order striking Petitioner's statement of disqualification was flawed in several respects, the Fifth Appellate District vacated the trial court's order and provided the judge three days from the date the statement of disqualification is reinstated to respond before being deemed to have consented to disqualification by operation of time. View "North American Title Company v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In 2005, the Regents adopted a long-range development plan (LRDP) for UC Berkeley through the year 2020. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR, California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, 21000) noted the LRDP “represents a maximum amount of net new growth.” which the University could substantially exceed only by amending the LRDP. In 2018, the Regents approved a new development for additional academic space and campus housing and certified a Supplemental EIR, which established an updated population baseline.SBN challenged decisions to increase enrollment beyond the level described in the 2005 EIR without further CEQA review. On remand, the trial court found that parts of the SEIR did not comply with CEQA and ordered the Regents to revise the SEIR and suspend enrollment increases. The Regents cited its certification of a 2021 LRDP and related EIR and Senate Bill 118, which modifies section 21080.09 to clarify that “Enrollment or changes in enrollment, by themselves, do not constitute a project” under CEQA and limit the remedies available if a court finds deficiencies in an environmental review based on enrollment.The court of appeal vacated, holding that certification of the 2021 EIR and S.B. 118 moot SBN’s challenge to the enrollment increases and make unenforceable the orders suspending enrollment increases. The SEIR’s project description complied with CEQA and there was no error in the discussion of mitigation measures for historic resources. View "Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

The Settlor of a trust, who is both the trustor and trustee, sought to amend his trust. The trust document provides that to amend the trust, he must send the document by certified mail to the trustee. The Settlor failed to follow this procedure. Thus, the Second Appellate District held that the purported amendment did not conform to the terms of the trust, rendering the amendment invalid. As a result, the trust became revocable upon the Settlor's death. After his death, the Settlor's son found an amendment in a stamped envelope addressed to the Settlor's attorney.The Second Appellate District determined that the trust itself sets forth the terms under which modification is effective. Here, because the Settlor failed to follow the terms of the trust, the amendment was not valid. View "Diaz v. Zuniga" on Justia Law