Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Moses attended a gathering at a condominium Roger-McKeever rented. Two years later, Moses filed suit for injuries. Moses alleged that, upon her arrival, she mentioned to Roger-McKeever that the entryway was dark. Roger-McKeever “was apologetic indicating that there was an electrical problem” and explained that her landlord had not been responsive in repairing the light. A photograph depicted three steps leading up from a street sidewalk, to a short walkway that ended at a door to Roger-McKeever’s condominium. Moses stated that when she was leaving, she could not see the second step and fell. She provided a declaration from a mechanical engineer that the steps were non-compliant with the building code and that the absence of a handrail and the riser heights were probable causes of the accident. Roger-McKeever submitted a declaration and the depositions of two individuals who attended the meeting, indicating that the walkway was not noticeably dark that night.The court granted Roger-McKeever summary judgment, finding that Roger-McKeever was a tenant who did not have control over the steps or the outside lighting and had no duty to maintain or repair that area. Roger-McKeever did not have a duty to warn Moses because she did not have prior notice that the steps were a “non-obvious” dangerous condition. The court of appeal affirmed. Moses did not raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether Roger-McKeever owed her a duty of care to protect her against the allegedly dangerous condition of the walkway. View "Moses v. Roger-McKeever" on Justia Law

After years of what the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) viewed as unsatisfactory teaching performance by a certificated teacher, LAUSD served the teacher with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and a Statement of Charges, which included notice that the employee was suspended without pay. The teacher brought and prevailed on a motion for immediate reversal of suspension (MIRS) and thus received pay during the pendency of the dismissal proceedings. LAUSD ultimately prevailed in those proceedings. LAUSD then sought a writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court seeking to set aside the order granting the MIRS and to recoup the salary payments it had made to the teacher during the pendency of the proceedings. The trial court denied the writ, holding that the MIRS order is not reviewable. The court also ruled (1) LAUSD cannot recover the payments to the teacher under its cause of action for money had and received and (2) LAUSD’s cause of action for declaratory judgment is derivative of its other claims. The trial court entered judgment against LAUSD in favor of the teacher.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that LAUSD has failed to show that in adding the MIRS procedure, the Legislature intended school districts to be able to recover payments to subsequently dismissed employees. The court wrote that if LAUSD believed such recovery should be permitted through judicial review of MIRS orders or otherwise, it should address the Legislature. View "L.A. Unified School Dist. v. Office of Admin. Hearings" on Justia Law

In this insurance coverage action, Defendant Stillwater Insurance Company (Stillwater) contends that an animal liability exclusion in the insured’s homeowner’s insurance policy (the policy) precludes any duty to defend because the third parties sued the insured for injuries they and their dogs sustained when their dogs were bitten by two pit bulls on a public street. The insurer determined that the exclusion applied because the underlying complaint alleged that the pit bulls lived at the insured’s home and, therefore, it had no obligation to indemnify an excluded claim. The insured denied any ownership or control of the pit bulls, which were owned by her boyfriend, who did not live at her home. The insurer did not conduct any further investigation. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Stillwater on her claims based on Stillwater’s refusal to defend Plaintiff in the third-party lawsuit.   The Second Circuit reversed. The court concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Stillwater because there is evidence that Stillwater breached its duty to defend. The court also reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Stillwater on Plaintiff’s claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court explained that even if the insured was correct and the pit bulls were not under her ownership, the third party still might have raised a claim potentially covered by the policy. An insurer can be excused from the duty to defend only if the third-party complaint can by no conceivable theory raise an issue within the policy’s coverage. View "Dua v. Stillwater Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Young alleged that Midland improperly pursued a debt collection lawsuit and obtained a default judgment against her for a delinquent credit account of $8,529.93. She sought vacatur of the default judgment and damages under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She claimed that Midland falsely and deceptively represented in the debt collection lawsuit that they effected substituted service of process on her, and then relied on this false representation to obtain the default judgment and attempt to collect on it. The complaint also cited the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692). Midland responded with a motion to strike all of Young’s causes of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP statute), The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, finding thatYoung did not show she would probably prevail on the merits of her claims.The court of appeal reversed. Young showed she would probably prevail on the merits of her Rosenthal Act cause of action; she produced prima facie evidence that Midland falsely represented substituted service on her was effected in the debt collection lawsuit. She was not required under the Rosenthal Act section 1788.17 to show that Midland knowingly made this false representation. View "Young v. Midland Funding LLC" on Justia Law

The City of Lemoore (City) appealed following a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff, who was injured when he tripped over an uneven portion of a City sidewalk. The City asks us to declare the offending portion of the sidewalk not a “dangerous condition” under the Government Claims Act as a matter of law. The City argued the present sidewalk condition must be deemed trivial as a matter of law because of its open and obvious nature, Plaintiff’s admitted familiarity with the condition, and the absence of prior accidents there.   The Fifth Appellate District affirmed. On balance, the factors do not combine to create a risk so trivial, minor, or insignificant that the sidewalk condition must be held not dangerous as a matter of law. Although the condition was visible on approach on an inferably clear, dry day and had not harmed others or Plaintiff in his many prior jogs, reasonable minds could still differ as to its dangerousness based on the evidence of the first defect’s relatively large height and rough edge, the presence of back-to-back defects, and the partial obstruction of the pine needles and debris. The determination of the condition’s dangerousness was properly left to the jury, whose verdict we will not overturn. View "Stack v. City of Lemoore" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought an alternative writ of mandate/prohibition after the superior court denied his Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss a charge for active participation in a criminal street gang. In the motion, Petitioner argued the gang offense and enhancements should be dismissed in light of the changes to section 186.22 effectuated by Assembly Bill No. 333, which became effective January 1, 2022. He asserted the gang offense and enhancements were proven at the preliminary hearing under the former law, but the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was insufficient under the new definitions of “pattern of criminal gang activity” and “criminal street gang” to support the charges. The court denied the section 995 motion, and initially, we denied Petitioner’s writ petition from the court’s order. Petitioner then petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, and the matter was transferred back to the Fifth Appellate District.   The Fifth Appellate District agreed with the parties that Assembly Bill 333 applies retroactively to the preliminary hearing proceedings. The court rejected Petitioner’s contention that dismissal of all gang-related charges is required. The court issued a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to vacate the magistrate judge’s holding order as to the active gang participation offense and the gang enhancements and to hold further proceedings. The court explained that even assuming the language of section 995a, subdivision (b)(1) does not support reopening the preliminary hearing proceedings under the circumstances, the remedy the court adopted is supportable as a rule of judicial procedure by application of the principles governing postconviction reversals based upon a change in the law. View "Mendoza v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Starlight Cinemas, Inc., Akarakian Theaters, Inc. (collectively, Starlight) appealed from a judgment entered in favor of Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (MBIC) after the trial court granted MBIC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. Starlight, which owns and operates movie theaters in Southern California, sued MBIC for breach of an insurance contract and bad faith denial of coverage after MBIC denied Starlight’s claim for losses sustained when it was compelled by government orders to suspend operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Starlight contends a policy term providing coverage for lost business income due to a suspension of operations “caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property” can be reasonably construed to include loss of use of its theaters without any physical alteration to the property.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court concluded Starlight has not alleged a covered loss because the policy language requires a physical alteration of the covered property, which was not alleged. The court explained that Starlight did not allege that the COVID-19 virus was present in its theaters or that there was any physical alteration of its property as a result of either the virus or the government orders. As discussed, most California appellate courts have held the allegation of temporary loss of use of property resulting from pandemic-related government closure orders—without any physical loss of the property—is not sufficient to support a claim against an insurer for business income coverage under a policy that requires the suspension be caused by “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property. View "Starlight Cinemas, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Appellants Crestwood Behavior Health, Inc. (Crestwood), West Anaheim Extended Care and Extended Care Hospital of Westminster (West Anaheim), and Royale Health Care Center dba South Coast Post Acute (South Coast) (together, appellants) operated skilled nursing facilities serving beneficiaries of the California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal). Respondent Department of Health Care Services (the Department) administered Medi-Cal. As relevant here, the Department also administered the “Skilled Nursing Facility Quality and Accountability Supplemental Payment System” (QASP), which authorized supplemental payments, over and above Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, to skilled nursing facilities meeting certain performance standards. Consolidated appeals challenged the Department’s method for calculating QASP payments. Appellants argued they did not receive all the QASP payments to which they were entitled and blame the alleged underpayment to the Department’s practice of excluding certain Medi-Cal days—known as “special treatment program days” or “STP days”—from its calculations. They sought writs of mandate directing the Department to include STP days in the calculation of QASP payments. The Court of Appeal concurred with the trial court that appellants failed to identify an appropriate basis for writ relief. Appellants sued under Welf. & Inst. Code Section 14170 (a)(1), which did not impose a mandatory or ministerial duty on the Department that could support the issuance of a writ of mandate. And the Court found appellants did not show any abuse of discretion by the Department. Accordingly, the trial court judgment was affirmed. View "Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Baass" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Medical Center seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging violations of the unfair competition law (UCL) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) in connection with Medical Center’s emergency room billing practices. Briefly summarized, Plaintiff alleged Medical Center’s practice of charging him (and other similarly situated patients) an undisclosed “Evaluation and Management Services Fee” (EMS Fee) was an “unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practice.” The trial entered judgment in favor of Defendants.   The Fifth Appellate District reversed. The court held that Plaintiff sought a declaration of the parties' rights and duties under the COA and their legal rights in connection with EMS Fee disclosures. An actual controversy is alleged and appears to exist. Plaintiff is entitled to seek declaratory relief in regard to each controversy stated. The court concluded he has adequately stated a cause of action for declaratory relief. The court wrote that on remand, the trial court will have the discretion to consider a motion by Plaintiff to amend the FAC to state a cause of action for breach of contract should Plaintiff choose to file one. View "Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc." on Justia Law

The landlord is a four-member LLC with a single asset--a building in downtown Napa. The tenant, Stone Brewing, a large beer brewing and retail corporation, operates a brewpub in the building. Stone Brewing did not pay rent for several months during the pandemic. The landlord sued for unlawful detainer. Stone argued it was excused from paying rent because COVID-19 regulations and business interruptions triggered a force majeure provision in its lease.The trial court granted the landlord summary judgment, finding that the force majeure provision only excused performance if the claiming party was unable to meet its obligations due to factors outside its control; the tenant admitted during discovery it had the financial resources to pay rent during the period of the COVID-19 regulations but simply refused to do so. The court of appeal affirmed. The force majeure provision does not apply where the tenant had the ability to meet its contractual obligations but chooses not to perform due to financial constraints. The plain meaning of the force majeure provision does not support an interpretation that ties a party’s obligation to pay rent to its profitability or revenue stream instead of a delay or interruption caused by the force majeure event itself. View "West Pueblo Partners, LLC v. Stone Brewing Co., LLC" on Justia Law