Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The dispute arose when a property owner, after selling his San Diego County home and purchasing property in Trinity County, sought to transfer the base year value of his former property to his new one. In 2009, he sued the Trinity County Board of Supervisors to compel such a transfer under California law. The parties settled in 2012, agreeing that if the County later adopted an ordinance or if a change in law required it, the owner would be entitled to retroactively transfer the base year value. In 2020, after the passage of Proposition 19, which expanded the ability to transfer base year values between counties, the owner requested the transfer from the county assessor, who denied the request.The Superior Court of Trinity County held a bench trial and found in favor of the property owner on his breach of contract claims, ordering the County to specifically perform the settlement agreement and awarding damages. The court rejected the County’s arguments that the agreement was limited to intra-county transfers and that the Board lacked authority to bind the assessor. The court also found that the new law triggered the County’s obligations under the agreement.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, concluded that the Board of Supervisors did not have the authority to direct the county assessor in setting or transferring base year values, as this is a duty assigned by law to the assessor, an elected official independent of the Board’s control. The court held that the 2012 settlement agreement was void and unenforceable because it exceeded the Board’s legal authority. As a result, the judgment on the breach of contract claims was reversed, while the remainder of the judgment was affirmed. The County was awarded its costs on appeal. View "Sceper v. County of Trinity" on Justia Law

Two students challenged the University of California’s policy that prohibits the employment of undocumented students who lack federal work authorization. The University’s longstanding practice allowed employment of undocumented students with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status, as they have federal work authorization, but excluded those without such authorization. After the federal government stopped accepting new DACA applications, the number of undocumented students without work authorization increased. The University considered changing its policy but ultimately decided against it, citing significant risks of federal enforcement under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) and related regulations, and dissolved a working group tasked with exploring alternatives.The students filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, arguing that the University’s policy was an abuse of discretion and violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by discriminating based on immigration status. The court initially denied the petition, but the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back, instructing the appellate court to reconsider. The University argued that its policy was based on risk assessment rather than a definitive interpretation of IRCA, and that even if the policy was discriminatory, the risk of federal enforcement justified its continuation.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, held that the University’s policy facially discriminates based on immigration status and that, under state law, such discrimination is only permissible if required by federal law, which the University did not establish. The court concluded that the University abused its discretion by relying solely on litigation risk as a justification for its policy. The court issued a writ of mandate directing the University to reconsider its policy using proper legal criteria. View "Munoz v. The Regents of the University of Cal." on Justia Law

Several entities affected by California’s new water quality testing rules challenged the State Water Resources Control Board’s adoption of the State Policy for Water Quality Control: Toxicity Provisions. These Toxicity Provisions require the use of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Test of Significant Toxicity (TST) to measure whole effluent toxicity, which assesses the combined toxic effect of all pollutants in water. The plaintiffs, including sanitary districts and clean water associations, argued that the TST is not an approved method under federal law, that the Toxicity Provisions were not properly authorized, and that the State Board violated state environmental and procedural laws in adopting them.The Superior Court of Fresno County denied the plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandate and upheld the Toxicity Provisions, finding that they were properly adopted and that the TST was not an improper change to federal standards. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, maintaining their arguments regarding federal and state law compliance.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that the TST is not an approved method for use in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting under the federal Clean Water Act. The court found that the TST creates a new statistical endpoint for toxicity that is not authorized by federal regulations, which only approve the NOEC and IC25 endpoints. Therefore, the Toxicity Provisions conflict with federal law to the extent they require the TST for NPDES compliance. However, the court also held that the State Board properly adopted the Toxicity Provisions as a state water policy under state law, and that the adoption complied with the California Administrative Procedure Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. The judgment was reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Camarillo Sanitary Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd." on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was charged with assault with a deadly weapon after an altercation with a neighbor in April 2020. The defendant, who had a prior falling out with the victim, was accused of attacking the victim with a skateboard following a brief verbal exchange. In September 2023, the defendant sought pretrial mental health diversion, submitting a recent diagnosis from a qualified mental health professional indicating he suffered from major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion. The court acknowledged the recent diagnosis but concluded that because the diagnosis was made three years after the offense, it did not demonstrate that the mental disorder played a significant role in the commission of the crime. The court did not find clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was a contributing factor, and the defendant subsequently pleaded guilty. After his plea, the defendant renewed his motion for diversion and sought to withdraw his plea, but both motions were denied.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that under the amended Penal Code section 1001.36, a qualifying mental health diagnosis made within five years of the diversion request creates a presumption that the disorder contributed to the charged offense. The trial court erred by imposing a stricter timing requirement and by failing to recognize the statutory presumption. Because the prosecution did not present clear and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption, the appellate court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to determine the defendant’s suitability for diversion, rather than eligibility. If found suitable, diversion may be granted; otherwise, the conviction will be reinstated. View "P. v. Harlow" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in which the defendant, while on probation, delivered an unexpected punch to a friend, causing the victim to fall and sustain a fatal brain injury. The two had been drinking with others, and after a separate altercation, the victim attempted to calm the defendant. As the victim backed away, the defendant struck him, resulting in the victim’s head hitting the street. The defendant fled the scene. The victim died from catastrophic brain swelling due to the impact.A jury in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County convicted the defendant of voluntary manslaughter based on conscious disregard for human life. The defendant admitted to a prior serious felony and a prior strike under California’s “Three Strikes” law. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss the strike and imposed a 27-year sentence, consisting of the upper term for manslaughter, doubled for the strike, plus an enhancement for the prior serious felony. The defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the prosecutor misstated the law regarding the required risk of death for voluntary manslaughter and that the jury instructions were inadequate. The California Court of Appeal initially affirmed the judgment.The California Supreme Court granted review and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, instructing reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. On reconsideration, the Court of Appeal held that the “high degree of probability of death” standard articulated in People v. Reyes applies only to implied malice murder, not to voluntary manslaughter based on conscious disregard for life. The court found no error in the prosecutor’s statements or the jury instructions. However, the court determined that resentencing was required due to statutory changes and recent Supreme Court guidance on sentencing procedures. The sentence was reversed and remanded for full resentencing; the judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "P. v. Fleming" on Justia Law

Bradley Hirdman filed a complaint against his former employer, Charter Communications, LLC, alleging violations of various Labor Code sections under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Hirdman claimed that Charter improperly classified him as an "exempt employee" for calculating paid sick leave, arguing he should have been classified as a "nonexempt employee" and thus entitled to a different calculation method. Charter contended that Hirdman was correctly classified as an exempt outside salesperson, exempt from overtime compensation requirements.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted Charter's motion for summary adjudication, agreeing that the statutory language was unambiguous and that section 246, subdivision (l)(3) applied to exempt outside salespersons like Hirdman. The court found that Charter properly calculated and paid sick leave in the same manner as other forms of paid leave.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court held that the statutory language of section 246, subdivision (l)(3) was clear and unambiguous, applying to all exempt employees, including outside salespersons. The court rejected Hirdman's argument that the term "exempt employees" should be limited to those exempt under administrative, executive, or professional exemptions. The court also found that the legislative history and a Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE) opinion letter did not support Hirdman's interpretation. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that Charter correctly calculated paid sick leave for Hirdman and other outside salespersons. View "Hirdman v. Charter Communications, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1996, California voters enacted Proposition 218, adding article XIII D to the California Constitution, which includes section 6(b)(3). This section mandates that governmental fees or charges imposed on property must not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. Plaintiffs, representing a class of single-family residential (SFR) customers of the City of San Diego, challenged the City's tiered water rates, claiming they violated section 6(b)(3) by exceeding the proportional cost of delivering water.The Superior Court of San Diego County ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the City's tiered rates did not comply with section 6(b)(3). The court concluded that the City failed to show that its tiered rates were based on the actual cost of providing water at different usage levels. The court found that the City's tiered rates were designed to encourage conservation rather than reflect the cost of service, and that the City's use of peaking factors and other methodologies lacked supporting data.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the City did not meet its burden of proving that its tiered rates complied with section 6(b)(3). The appellate court found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings that the City's tiered rates were not cost-proportional and that the City's methodologies were not adequately supported by data. The court also addressed the issue of class certification, finding that the class was properly certified and that the plaintiffs had a common interest in challenging the City's rate structure.The appellate court directed the trial court to amend the judgment to allow the City to satisfy the refund award pursuant to newly enacted Government Code section 53758.5, which requires agencies to credit refund awards against future increases in or impositions of the property-related charge. The court denied the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees on appeal without prejudice, allowing the trial court to determine the entitlement to such fees. View "Patz v. City of S.D." on Justia Law

Justin J. (Father) appealed a jurisdiction finding and disposition order declaring his children, Hunter V. and B.V., dependents of the juvenile court. The court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j), alleging the children's mother had a history of substance abuse and left the children without proper care. The petition also alleged Father had an extensive criminal history and was incarcerated, which placed the children at risk.The Los Angeles County Superior Court held a detention hearing where neither parent was present. The court detained the children and ordered monitored visitation for both parents. At the jurisdiction hearing, the court amended the petition to allege Father was unable to parent due to his incarceration and inability to make an appropriate plan for the children. The court sustained the amended allegations and proceeded with the disposition hearing, declaring the children dependents of the court and ordering reunification services for both parents.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court found that the juvenile court violated Father's due process rights by failing to provide notice of the amended allegations, which were based on a different set of facts and legal theory from the initial petition. The court also violated Father's statutory right to be present at the jurisdiction hearing, as required by Penal Code section 2625, subdivision (d). The appellate court applied the Chapman standard for federal constitutional error and concluded the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court reversed the jurisdiction finding and disposition order as to Father and remanded the case for further proceedings with Father present unless he waives his right to be present. View "In re Hunter V." on Justia Law

Paul Kim, a California resident, purchased an Airstream motorhome from a dealer in California. The warranty agreement for the motorhome included an Ohio choice of law provision and an Ohio forum selection clause. Kim sued Airstream in California, alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumers Warranty Act. Airstream moved to stay the lawsuit in favor of the Ohio forum, citing the forum selection clause. Kim opposed, arguing that enforcing the forum selection clause would diminish his unwaivable rights under the Song-Beverly Act.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County severed the choice of law provision as illegal under the Song-Beverly Act’s waiver prohibition but granted Airstream’s motion to stay, concluding that enforcing the forum selection clause would not diminish Kim’s unwaivable California rights. The court relied on Airstream’s stipulation to apply the Song-Beverly Act in the Ohio forum.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to sever the choice of law provision but reversed the decision to stay the case. The appellate court held that Airstream’s stipulation was insufficient to meet its burden of proving that enforcing the forum selection clause would not diminish Kim’s unwaivable rights. The court instructed the trial court to allow Airstream the opportunity to demonstrate that Ohio conflict of law principles would require the application of the Song-Beverly Act to Kim’s claims, thereby protecting his unwaivable rights. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Kim v. Airstream" on Justia Law

An 18-year-old defendant assisted his employer, a drug dealer, in abducting a drug addict at gunpoint. The victim, who had previously sold drugs for the dealer under threat, was lured to a parking lot, forcibly taken to the dealer’s home, and subjected to prolonged violence and threats in an attempt to extort $100,000. The victim was beaten, tied up, threatened with death, forced to ingest or absorb drugs, and ultimately locked in a closet with the door screwed shut. After approximately 28 hours, a SWAT team rescued the victim. The defendant was present throughout the ordeal, actively participated in the violence, and threatened the victim and his family.A jury in the Superior Court of Orange County convicted the defendant of aggravated kidnapping with bodily harm and a firearm enhancement. The court imposed a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) plus a 10-year firearm enhancement, and also imposed a $300 parole revocation fine. The defendant appealed, arguing that the LWOP sentence was unconstitutional as applied to 18-year-olds under both the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution, and that the parole revocation fine was improper because he was ineligible for parole.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held that binding precedent from the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court does not extend the constitutional protections against LWOP sentences for juveniles to offenders who were 18 at the time of the crime. The court also found that the sentence was not grossly disproportionate under the California Constitution, given the defendant’s conduct and criminal history. However, the court agreed that the parole revocation fine was improper and ordered it stricken. The judgment was affirmed as modified. View "P. v. Christensen" on Justia Law