Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A.C. (Mother) challenged a juvenile court’s dispositional finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 did not apply to the dependency proceedings to her five children. Mother contended that San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) failed to discharge its duty of initial inquiry under Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2 (b). After review of the juvenile court record, the Court of Appeal concluded that Mother’s argument lacked merit and therefore affirmed. View "In re Ja.O." on Justia Law

C.E. (mother) appealed an order terminating her parental rights to I.E. (the child) and freeing the child for adoption. Mother’s sole claim on appeal was that the juvenile court erred by ruling the parental benefit exception to termination of parental rights did not apply. The Court of Appeal found the record, especially the child’s consistent and compelling statements that she wished to be adopted, "amply supported" the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination of mother’s parental rights would not be detrimental to the child. Because the Court found no abuse of discretion, judgment was affirmed. View "In re I.E." on Justia Law

After mother was released from a section 5150 hold, the Agency and mother agreed to a safety plan whereby 11-month-old S.F. would remain in maternal grandmother’s care. Mother violated the safety plan. Father was then residing in New York but was providing monetary assistance to mother and minor. Mother and her boyfriend alleged she received threatening text messages from father. The Agency detained S.F. and filed a petition alleging failure to protect under Welfare and Institutions Code 300(b)(1), alleging that “father has anger management issues and “reported that he used to abuse crack cocaine and alcohol but that he is about 2 years sober.” Father desired to take custody and was willing to move to California. He alleged that he and his sister had been “physically present” and helped care for minor until minor was three months old.The juvenile court adjudicated S.F. a dependent of the court. The court of appeal reversed in part. The jurisdictional findings, the dispositional order removing S.F. from father’s custody, and the orders requiring father to engage in substance abuse testing and treatment are not supported by substantial evidence. The juvenile court adequately complied with the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901. The Agency had a reason to believe, but did not have sufficient information to determine there was a reason to know, S.F. was an Indian child. View "In re S.F." on Justia Law

Newborn A.H. was placed in a foster home. The Agency reported that it had denied a request for placement by J.B., a “nonrelative extended family member” (NREFM, Welf. & Inst. Code 362.7). J.B. filed a “Relative Information,” requesting that A.H. live with her. The Agency objected on the ground that J.B. was not a relative for purposes of the proceedings. The juvenile court agreed, stating that it independently considered placement with several relatives or with J.B. and denied placement with those individuals “for the reasons stated in the Social Worker’s Report.” J.B. filed a section 388 “Request to Change Court Order.” The juvenile court summarily denied J.B.’s petition, finding that the request did not state new evidence or a change of circumstances, and did not promote A.H.’s best interest. J.B. filed a notice of appeal. The Agency reported that in the dependency case of A.H.’s half-sibling, J.B. “created a division” between the Agency and the parents, falsely accusing the caregiver of neglect. The juvenile court terminated parental rights, selecting adoption as the permanent plan.The court of appeal dismissed J.B.’s appeal from the denial of her petition, the refusal to consider her relative information form, and the placement order. Although J.B. may have an “interest” in A.H. that is sufficient for filing a section 388 petition, she does not have a legally cognizable interest in A.H.’s placement such that she has standing to challenge the juvenile court’s placement decision. View "In re A.H." on Justia Law

In 2021, police identified Andre Lepere as a person of interest through DNA “Investigative Genealogy.” In 1980, a 79-year-old woman was raped and murdered in her Anaheim home. Police booked a rape kit into evidence. In 2002, a forensic scientist was able to extract male DNA from the rape kit. Lepere was living in New Mexico at that time, but there was evidence he had lived in Anaheim in 1980. Police obtained a search warrant and recovered Lepere’s DNA from a trash can next to his home. Lepere’s DNA was a match with DNA recovered from the 1980 murder victim. A jury found Lepere guilty of the 1980 murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). On appeal, Lepere claimed the police officer’s affidavit in support of the search warrant lacked probable cause and the prosecutor misstated the law during the closing argument. After review, the Court of Appeal found the facts about the DNA evidence and the other corroborating facts in the affidavit established probable cause for the search. As far as the closing argument goes, even if we assume the prosecutor misstated the law, we presume the jurors followed the court’s instructions. We also find there was overwhelming evidence of Lepere’s guilt. Thus, we affirm the judgment. View "California v. Lepere" on Justia Law

Maria chose her family’s benefits during her 2014 orientation, using Coppola laptops. Coppola’s HR team was available to answer questions. The authorization agreement notifies enrollees that "clicking the SAVE button below ... will serve as my electronic signature of agreement to the ... Arbitration Agreement (above)," and “If you do not wish to accept the arbitration agreement above you must click on the CANCEL button below.”Andrea (Maria’s daughter) sued Kaiser, for its failure to timely diagnose her aggressive cancer. Kaiser petitioned to compel arbitration. Andrea argued Kaiser failed to comply with Health and Safety Code 1363.1’s specific requirements for disclosing arbitration agreements with healthcare service plans. Maria declared she was unaware of signing an arbitration agreement. Although Maria had a good understanding of English, she was not a native speaker and declared she could not read English well enough to understand she was agreeing to arbitration. Maria also stated she did not know how to operate the computer. The court granted Kaiser’s motion. The parties selected an arbitrator from a list. A disclosure statement listed the arbitrator’s prior and pending cases involving Kaiser. The arbitrator later sent notices informing the parties he had agreed to arbitrate additional Kaiser cases. The arbitrator concluded Kaiser was not liable for Andrea’s death.The court of appeal affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate. The arbitrator had an initial obligation to disclose he had pending cases involving Kaiser and was not obligated to disclose their outcome; the fact the arbitrator decided cases in Kaiser’s favor during the pendency of the Perezes’ arbitration would not raise doubt the arbitrator would be impartial. View "Perez v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc." on Justia Law

The County of San Diego filed a test claim with the Commission on State Mandates seeking reimbursement from the State for costs the County incurred to prepare for, and attend, criminal proceedings known as "Franklin" proceedings. The Commission denied the County’s test claim, finding the costs at issue were not reimbursable because the laws on which the County based its test claim—Penal Code sections 3041, 3046, 3051, and 4801, as added and amended by Statutes 2013, chapter 312, Statutes 2015, chapter 471, and Statutes 2017, chapter 684—did not expressly require counties to participate in Franklin proceedings. Alternatively, the Commission found the County was not entitled to reimbursement because the Test Claim Statutes fell within an exception to the mandatory reimbursement requirement, which applied when a law changes the penalty for a crime. The County sought judicial review, but the trial court denied relief for the same reasons articulated by the Commission in its decision denying the test claim. Like the Commission and the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded the County was not entitled to mandatory reimbursement from the State because the Test Claim Statutes changed the penalties for crimes. "In our view, these laws change the penalties for crimes because they make the vast majority of youth offenders in the State eligible to receive a youth offender parole hearing and, as a result, many youth offenders are released from prison years or even decades earlier than they would have been if they had served out their original sentences." Given this determination, the Court determined it was unnecessary to decide whether the Test Claim Statutes imposed a mandate on counties to carry out a new program or a higher level of service. View "County of San Diego v. Com. on State Mandates" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured by fellow fans at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (Coliseum) near the end of a Los Angeles Rams football game. Plaintiff, his wife, and two daughters brought an action against Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), the Los Angeles Rams (Rams) and the University of Southern California (USC), alleging causes of action for negligence, premises liability and related torts. All three Defendants obtained summary judgment in their favor. This appeal involves two of the defendants: CSC and the Rams. CSC is an entity hired to provide crowd management services at the Coliseum during certain events, including Rams football games. In granting CSC’s and the Rams’ motions for summary judgment, the trial court assumed that both Defendants had a duty to protect Plaintiff and his family and had failed to take the ameliorative steps proposed by Plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the court granted summary judgment on the ground that these failures were not the cause of the assault. Plaintiffs appealed.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiffs do not provide any record citation showing how response time was measured. Plaintiffs seem to assume that response time is measured from when a CSC employee first decides to seek assistance from APEX or LAPD to the time APEX or LAPD personnel arrives. However, the court explained that It is equally, if not more, likely that response time is measured from when APEX or LAPD receive the request for assistance from CSC command. Plaintiffs have not created a triable issue of fact concerning whether improving CSC communications would have prevented the assault View "Romero v. Los Angeles Rams" on Justia Law

Samsara rented San Francisco office space from Rreef for a ten-year term, to be in “delivery condition” by November 1, 2019. Samsara provided an $11,384,368.00 letter of credit as “collateral for the full performance.” In 2021, Samsara sued, asserting that in July 2019, after Rreef had certified “delivery condition,” Samsara discovered that the premises were contaminated with lead and asbestos and that after Samsara conducted testing, Rreef cut off its access to the premises. The next day, Rreef served Samsara a 5-day notice to pay rent or quit based on Samsara’s alleged failure to pay rent for August-September 2021 ($1,826,697.95). Rreef subsequently filed an unlawful detainer complaint, alleging that Samsara stopped paying rent and had created a pretext to avoid its lease obligations. In October 2021, Rreef sought a writ of attachment in the unlawful detainer action, seeking $3,796,175.51: the amount demanded in the 5-day notice and $1,784,477.53 for October-November.The court granted Rreef’s application. The court of appeal reversed and remanded. The court rejected Samsara’s arguments that the amount that Rreef sought to attach must be reduced under Code of Civil Procedure 483.015(b)(4) by the amount remaining on the letter of credit and that the trial court erroneously refused to consider Samsara’s affirmative defenses of waiver and estoppel. However, the trial court declined to consider Samsara’s retaliatory eviction defense and whether Rreef sought attachment for an improper purpose. View "Rreef America Reit II Corp, YYYY v. Samsara, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from judgments of conviction entered after a jury found them each guilty of one count of grand theft. Defendants contend there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions because the evidence failed to establish the value of the stolen items—15 boxes of adjustable dumbbells—exceeded $950. The only evidence of the dumbbells’ value was the testimony of the manager of the warehouse facility where the theft occurred, who testified to the prices listed on three retailers’ websites for the same product. Defendants contend this testimony was inadmissible hearsay because it was offered for the truth of the dumbbells’ value.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court concluded that evidence of a retail price for a stolen item, whether based on an online listing or a brick-and-mortar store price tag, is admissible for the nonhearsay purpose of showing that a retailer is advertising the item for a specified price in the marketplace. This price, in turn, is circumstantial evidence of the fair market value of the item, defined under California law as the highest price obtainable in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The jury need not decide the truth of whether a specific retailer would sell the item for the advertised price or the value the retailer places on the item, nor should the jury consider the evidence for these hearsay purposes. Further, the court held that there was substantial circumstantial evidence co-Defendant aided and abetted the theft. View "P. v. Portillo" on Justia Law