Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2018, the plaintiff was placed on an involuntary 72-hour psychiatric hold, resulting in the creation of a confidential record by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. In 2021, during a legal dispute over their father’s estate, the plaintiff discovered that his sister’s attorney had obtained this confidential record and used it to threaten him in an attempt to force dismissal of his elder abuse lawsuit against his sister. The record had been released by an office specialist at the Sheriff’s Department, who admitted knowing the sister was not entitled to the record but disclosed it anyway, believing she was concerned for the plaintiff’s well-being.A jury in the Superior Court of Orange County found that the office specialist willfully and knowingly disclosed the confidential record, awarding the plaintiff $29,000 in economic damages and $40,000 in noneconomic damages. The jury also found the plaintiff’s sister and her attorney responsible for 25 percent of the damages. However, the trial court granted a motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict, concluding there was insufficient evidence of willfulness, declined to treble the damages, and apportioned both economic and noneconomic damages, entering judgment for 75 percent of the total damages against the office specialist and the County.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that “willfully and knowingly” under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5330 means intentionally releasing confidential records to someone known to be unauthorized, regardless of intent to harm. The court found substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of willfulness, requiring trebling of damages. The court also held that while noneconomic damages could be apportioned to other tortfeasors, economic damages could not. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for $177,000 against the County and the office specialist, jointly and severally. View "Doe v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

A defendant was stopped by police in the early morning hours after being observed swerving and speeding. The officer detected signs of alcohol intoxication, and the defendant refused a chemical test, leading to a blood draw pursuant to a warrant. The defendant was charged with four misdemeanor offenses related to driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, with additional allegations of a high blood alcohol content and refusal to submit to testing. The defendant, a military veteran, moved for pretrial military diversion under California Penal Code section 1001.80, submitting evidence of his military service and documentation of alcohol use disorder and other mental health conditions allegedly resulting from his service.The Superior Court of Orange County denied the motion for military diversion, reasoning that there was no nexus between the defendant’s alcohol abuse and his military service, and that his alcohol use predated his service. The court appeared to require the defendant to show a relationship between his qualifying condition and the commission of the charged offenses. The defendant then sought a writ of mandate from the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held that for misdemeanor charges, Penal Code section 1001.80 does not require a defendant to show a nexus between the qualifying condition (such as substance abuse) and the commission of the offense. The court further clarified that the burden of proof for eligibility is a “reasonable possibility” standard: the defendant must show a reasonable possibility that he is suffering from a qualifying condition as a result of military service. The court granted the writ, directed the trial court to vacate its denial, and ordered a new hearing applying the correct legal standards. View "Segura v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A public elementary school district arranged for its students to attend a four-day overnight outdoor science camp operated by the county office of education. The county office provided direct overnight supervision, while district teachers were present but only on call. A student alleged that, during her attendance at the camp as a fifth grader, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a county office employee who served as a night monitor. The student claimed that both the district and the county office knew or should have known of the employee’s prior misconduct and failed to protect her.The student filed a negligence claim against the district, the county office, and the employee. The district moved for summary judgment in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, arguing that it was immune from liability under Education Code sections 35330 and 44808. The district contended that the camp was a “field trip or excursion” subject to a statutory waiver of claims and that, alternatively, it could not be liable because its employees were not providing immediate and direct supervision at the time of the alleged assaults. The trial court granted summary judgment for the district based solely on section 35330, finding the statutory waiver applied.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo. It held that the district failed to establish as a matter of law that the camp was a “field trip or excursion” under section 35330, as the program was part of the required science curriculum rather than a recreational or observational departure. The court also found the district did not meet its burden under section 44808 to show that no district employee should have been providing immediate and direct supervision, especially in light of allegations that the district knew of risks posed by the county employee. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the district. View "Doe v. Mount Pleasant Elementary School District" on Justia Law

In 2006, Victor Arriaga entered into an oral agreement with Gilbert Torres to repair water-damaged drywall in Torres’s home. The project expanded to include additional repairs and a room addition, with Torres paying Arriaga substantial sums by check and cash. After several weeks, Arriaga and his father, who worked with him, left the job unfinished and removed their tools and materials from the property. Torres was unable to contact Arriaga afterward. The Los Angeles Building and Safety Department later issued a stop-work notice due to unpermitted and non-code-compliant work, and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) discovered Arriaga was unlicensed. The CSLB referred the matter to the district attorney, who filed a felony complaint in 2007 for wrongful diversion of construction funds. However, there was no evidence that law enforcement attempted to contact Arriaga or inform him of the warrant. Arriaga moved to Nevada, and only learned of the warrant in 2022 after a misdemeanor arrest there. He returned to Los Angeles in 2023 to address the warrant and was arraigned.The Los Angeles County Superior Court held a preliminary hearing in 2023, after which Arriaga was held to answer. In 2024, Arriaga moved to dismiss the information, arguing that the 16-year delay between the complaint and his arraignment violated his state and federal speedy trial rights, causing him prejudice due to lost evidence and the death of his father, a key witness. The trial court denied the motion, finding no actual prejudice and concluding that the People had a legitimate justification for the delay.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that Arriaga’s state speedy trial right was violated by the 16-year post-complaint delay, finding that he made a prima facie showing of prejudice due to the loss of his father’s testimony, and that the prosecution failed to provide a legitimate justification for the delay. The court granted Arriaga’s petition for a writ of prohibition and directed the trial court to dismiss the felony count. View "Arriaga v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Arron and Arthur Benedetti, along with the Estate of Willie Benedetti, challenged a provision in Marin County’s amended local coastal program (LCP) that allows owners of certain farmland to build additional residential units only if they record a restrictive covenant. This covenant requires the owner of the new units to be actively and directly engaged in agriculture, either through direct involvement in commercial agriculture or by leasing the property to a commercial agricultural producer. The Benedettis, who inherited farmland and sought to build a second residence, argued that this provision was facially unconstitutional, claiming it violated the nexus and proportionality requirements established in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, and infringed upon their substantive due process rights by compelling them to work in a specific occupation.The Marin County Superior Court initially ruled that the Benedettis could not bring a facial takings challenge under Nollan/Dolan and, applying rational basis review, denied their petition and complaint based on their due process theory. The trial court sustained a demurrer to one cause of action and denied relief on the others, leading to the Benedettis’ appeal.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that, contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the Benedettis could raise a facial Nollan/Dolan claim. However, the court found that the restrictive covenant requirement had a sufficient nexus and rough proportionality to the county’s interest in preserving agricultural land and did not violate substantive due process. The court applied rational basis review and determined the provision was reasonably related to a legitimate legislative goal. The judgment of the Marin County Superior Court was affirmed. View "Benedetti v. County of Marin" on Justia Law

A developer purchased a property in Alameda that had previously been used by the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard as housing for military personnel and their families. The property, containing about 150 residential units, was vacant and in disrepair for over a decade before the developer acquired it in 2018. The developer extensively renovated the units and related infrastructure, spending significant sums, and obtained a new certificate of occupancy from the City in 2020. The developer then began renting the units to the general public.After the renovations, a dispute arose regarding whether the renovated units were subject to the City of Alameda’s Rent Control Ordinance. The City’s Rent Program Director determined that the units were not exempt from local rent control under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, reasoning that the property had been used for residential purposes prior to the issuance of the new certificate of occupancy. An administrative hearing officer upheld this determination. The developer challenged this decision in the Superior Court of Alameda County, which ruled in favor of the developer, finding that the exemption applied and that the renovated property qualified as new residential housing stock.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that under the Costa-Hawkins Act, as interpreted by prior decisions such as NCR Properties, LLC v. City of Berkeley and Burien, LLC v. Wiley, the exemption from local rent control for properties with a certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995, does not apply if the property had prior residential use. The court concluded that the extensive renovations and the period of vacancy did not transform the property into new housing for purposes of the exemption. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "CP VI Admirals Cove, LLC v. City of Alameda" on Justia Law

Andre Hart was convicted of first-degree murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm following a 1996 jury trial. The incident involved Hart and another individual planning a robbery to obtain drugs. Hart approached the victim, Gary Hendricks, outside Hendricks’s apartment, and after a brief interaction, Hendricks was shot and killed. Witnesses saw Hart crouched over the victim immediately after the shooting, and later, Hart admitted to a friend that he had shot someone. However, the jury found not true an allegation that Hart personally used a firearm during the murder.After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Hart filed a petition in the Superior Court of San Diego County under Penal Code section 1172.6, seeking to vacate his murder conviction based on changes in California’s felony murder law. At the evidentiary hearing, Hart argued that the jury’s prior finding on the firearm use allegation precluded the court from finding he was the actual killer. The court admitted Hart’s 2021 statements to a forensic psychologist, in which he admitted to being the shooter, and found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hart was the actual killer. Alternatively, the court found Hart was a major participant in the robbery who acted with reckless indifference to human life.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that Hart’s statements to the psychologist were admissible and not protected by privilege or the privilege against self-incrimination. It further held that neither section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(2), due process, nor issue preclusion barred the trial court from finding Hart was the actual killer, as the jury’s not true finding on the firearm use allegation was not an “ultimate fact” necessary for murder liability. The order denying Hart’s petition was affirmed. View "People v. Hart" on Justia Law

An elderly plaintiff with significant disabilities inherited her home and, facing a tax sale due to unpaid property taxes, responded to a flyer offering help. She met with the defendant, who had her sign documents that transferred ownership of her home to him, allegedly under the pretense of providing a loan. The documents did not provide for any payment to the plaintiff, only that the defendant would pay the back taxes. The plaintiff later attempted to cancel the transaction, believing it had been voided when the defendant returned her documents and she received no loan. Several years later, the defendant served her with an eviction notice, prompting her to file suit alleging fraud, undue influence, financial elder abuse, and other claims, seeking cancellation of the transfer and damages.The case was heard in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The defendant, representing himself, filed an answer and a cross-complaint, asserting that he had purchased the property and that the plaintiff had lived rent-free for years. The litigation was marked by extensive discovery disputes, with the plaintiff filing nine motions to compel and for sanctions due to the defendant’s repeated failures to provide timely and adequate discovery responses, appear for depositions, and pay court-ordered sanctions. The court issued incremental sanctions, including monetary and issue sanctions, before ultimately imposing terminating sanctions by striking the defendant’s answer and cross-complaint, leading to a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing terminating sanctions after the defendant’s persistent and willful noncompliance with discovery orders. The court also found that the plaintiff’s complaint provided sufficient notice of damages, and that the award of damages and attorney fees was supported by substantial evidence. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all respects. View "Atlas v. Davidyan" on Justia Law

A property owner challenged an annual assessment levied by a city for the maintenance of landscaping and lighting improvements within a maintenance district. The assessment, originally set at $196.23 per residential lot in 1996, had increased to $300 per lot by the 2022–2023 tax year. The property owner argued that this increase violated Proposition 218, a constitutional amendment that restricts local governments’ ability to impose or increase taxes, assessments, and fees without voter approval. The city had not submitted the assessment to voters after Proposition 218’s passage, asserting that the assessment was exempt from Proposition 218’s requirements as a preexisting assessment for certain public services.The Superior Court of California, County of Solano, found in favor of the city. The court determined that the assessment was exempt from Proposition 218 and that the increase to $300 did not constitute an “increase” under the law because it did not exceed a range established before Proposition 218 took effect. Judgment was entered for the city, and the property owner appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the assessment had been “increased” within the meaning of Proposition 218 and the implementing statutes because the per-lot rate was higher than the rate in effect when Proposition 218 became law. The court rejected the city’s argument that a flat per-lot assessment does not involve a “rate” and found that the statutory definition of “rate” includes a per-parcel amount. The court also concluded that only ranges adopted in compliance with Proposition 218’s procedures could shield subsequent increases from voter approval requirements. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Thacker v. City of Fairfield" on Justia Law

A Black defendant was convicted of multiple felonies, including attempted premeditated murder, torture, and assault, after a series of violent incidents. The most serious event occurred at a hotel, where the defendant attacked a night manager with a boxcutter, stabbed him, and then continued to assault him with a pen and by biting and headbutting him. The defendant also assaulted correctional officers on two separate occasions while in jail. At trial, the defense did not dispute the violent conduct but argued that the defendant lacked the specific intent required for the most serious charges, emphasizing his impulsive behavior and likening his actions to those of an animal.The case was tried in the San Mateo County Superior Court, where the jury found the defendant guilty on all charges presented. The court imposed consecutive sentences for attempted murder and torture, finding that the crimes involved separate acts of violence and objectives. The court also described the defendant’s conduct as “animalistic” at sentencing. The defendant appealed, arguing that his counsel’s and the court’s animal comparisons violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA), that the court erred in evidentiary rulings and sentencing, and that cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, held that the defendant was procedurally barred from raising RJA claims based on his counsel’s animal comparisons because those statements were part of a deliberate defense strategy, invoking the doctrine of invited error. The court also found that the RJA claim regarding the trial court’s comment was forfeited due to lack of objection. The court rejected the defendant’s other claims, finding no evidentiary or sentencing error, and affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Midell" on Justia Law