Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case concerns an agreement between the City of Fairfield and the Solano Irrigation District, initiated at the request of Solano County, to treat raw water for a new mixed-use development in Middle Green Valley, an unincorporated area outside Fairfield’s city limits. Under the agreement, the City would treat water supplied by the District and return it as potable water, while the District would handle distribution, operations, maintenance, and billing. The development, approved by the County, includes residential units and preserves a significant portion of land for agriculture and open space. The City asserted that providing such water treatment services outside its boundaries was consistent with its practices and rights.After the City Council approved the agreement, the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee filed a petition in the Solano County Superior Court, arguing that the agreement violated the City’s 2002 General Plan and California’s Planning and Zoning Law by providing municipal services for development outside the city’s urban limit line. The Superior Court granted the petition, finding the agreement inconsistent with the General Plan and invalidating it.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed whether state law required the agreement to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and, if so, whether the City’s determination of consistency was reasonable. The appellate court held that California law does not require such agreements to be consistent with a city’s general plan unless specifically mandated by statute, which was not the case here. Even assuming a consistency requirement, the court found the City’s determination that the agreement was consistent with its General Plan to be reasonable. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s judgment, thereby upholding the agreement. View "Solano County Orderly Growth Committee v. City of Fairfield" on Justia Law

A group of single-family residential (SFR) water customers challenged the City of San Diego’s tiered water rate structure, which imposed higher rates for increased water usage, arguing that these rates exceeded the proportional cost of service attributable to their parcels as required by California Constitution article XIII D, section 6(b)(3) (enacted by Proposition 218). The City’s water system serves a large population and divides customers into several classes, but only SFR customers were subject to tiered rates; other classes paid uniform rates. The City’s rates were based on cost-of-service studies using industry-standard methodologies, including “base-extra capacity” and “peaking factors,” but the plaintiffs contended these methods did not accurately reflect the actual cost of providing water at higher usage tiers.The Superior Court of San Diego County certified the case as a class action and held a bifurcated trial. In the first phase, the court found that the City failed to demonstrate, with substantial evidence, that its tiered rates for SFR customers complied with section 6(b)(3), concluding the rates were not based on the actual cost of service at each tier but rather on usage budgets and conservation goals. The court also found the City lacked sufficient data to justify its allocation of costs to higher tiers and that the rate structure discriminated against SFR customers compared to other classes. In the second phase, the court awarded the class a refund for overcharges, offset by undercharges, and ordered the City to implement new, compliant rates.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court’s judgment with directions. The appellate court held that the City bore the burden of proving its rates did not exceed the proportional cost of service and that the applicable standard was not mere reasonableness but actual cost proportionality, subject to independent judicial review. The court found substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that the City’s tiered rates were not cost-based and thus violated section 6(b)(3). The court also upheld class certification and the method for calculating the refund, and directed the trial court to amend the judgment to comply with newly enacted Government Code section 53758.5, which affects the manner of refunding overcharges. View "Patz v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

Leslie Cruz made two purchases from the website operated by subsidiaries of Tapestry, Inc. in early 2024. She later filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging that the companies engaged in unfair competition and false advertising by promoting misleading sales discounts. Cruz claimed that the advertised sale reductions were deceptive because the merchandise was rarely, if ever, sold at the full price listed, and sought restitution and disgorgement of unjust enrichment resulting from these practices.The defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause in their website’s Terms of Use. The checkout pages on the website included a line of gray, small-font text below the order submission button stating that by clicking, the user agreed to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, with hyperlinks to those documents. The trial court, after reviewing screenshots of the checkout pages, found that the notice of the arbitration agreement was not sufficiently conspicuous. The court emphasized that the notice was less prominent than other visual elements on the page and that the transaction did not create an expectation of an ongoing contractual relationship governed by extensive terms. The court concluded that Cruz had not assented to the arbitration agreement and denied the motion to compel arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. It held that the defendants failed to provide reasonably sufficient notice to Cruz that clicking the order button would bind her to the Terms of Use, including the arbitration provision. The court found that the design of the checkout pages did not adequately call attention to the notice text, and affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Cruz v. Tapestry" on Justia Law

In 2021, a plaintiff filed a complaint against a public school district, alleging that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a teacher while attending middle and high school. The complaint asserted that the teacher’s abusive conduct was widely known within the school and that the district either knew or should have known about the abuse but failed to act, allowing the teacher to remain employed. The plaintiff brought claims for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, relying on statutory provisions that exempt certain childhood sexual assault claims from the usual requirement to present a claim to the public entity before filing suit.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case after the school district moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district argued that the plaintiff’s claims were only possible due to Assembly Bill 218 (AB 218), which retroactively eliminated the claims presentation requirement for childhood sexual assault claims against public entities. The district contended that AB 218 violated the gift clause of the California Constitution by imposing liability for past acts where no enforceable claim previously existed. The trial court agreed, finding that AB 218 retroactively created liability and constituted an unconstitutional gift of public funds, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that AB 218 does not violate the gift clause because it did not create new substantive liability; rather, it removed a procedural barrier to enforcing pre-existing liability for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with directions to deny the school district’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "O.B. v. L.A. Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

A 16-year-old committed a violent home invasion, during which he raped, sodomized, and assaulted his former neighbor at knifepoint, then stole property from her home. He was convicted by a jury in 2002 of multiple counts, including forcible rape, oral copulation, sodomy, sexual battery, robbery, burglary, and related enhancements. His sentence was ultimately modified to a determinate term of 19 years, followed by a consecutive indeterminate term of 25 years to life, resulting in an effective sentence of 44 years to life.After serving more than 15 years, the defendant petitioned the Superior Court of Tulare County for recall and resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170(d)(1)(A), arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole (LWOP) and that, under equal protection principles as articulated in People v. Heard, he should be eligible for relief. The trial court denied the petition, finding that a 44-years-to-life sentence was not functionally equivalent to LWOP and thus did not qualify for resentencing under the statute.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, considered whether the functional equivalency analysis from People v. Contreras, which was developed in the Eighth Amendment context, should apply to equal protection challenges under section 1170(d). The court declined to import the Eighth Amendment standard, instead applying a rational basis review as required for equal protection claims. The court held that the Legislature could rationally distinguish between juveniles sentenced to explicit LWOP and those with lengthy term-of-years sentences that do not guarantee death in prison. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition, holding that section 1170(d)’s limitation to those sentenced to LWOP does not violate equal protection as applied to a juvenile nonhomicide offender sentenced to 44 years to life. View "People v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

A tenant entered into a lease for the lower level of a residential property in Los Angeles in 2015. In 2016, the property was purchased by a new landlord, who made some improvements at the tenant’s request. In 2018, the landlord sought to reclaim the unit for personal use and offered the tenant compensation to vacate, but the tenant refused, alleging harassment and claiming entitlement to substantial back rent. Subsequently, city agencies issued and later rescinded orders regarding the legality of the unit, with the landlord providing documentation to resolve the issues. Despite this, the tenant stopped paying rent, citing the unit’s alleged illegality, and remained in possession for over a year without payment. The landlord attempted to evict the tenant, provided relocation payments, and ultimately the tenant vacated after cashing a relocation check.The tenant filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, asserting multiple claims including violation of statutory and municipal code provisions, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. The landlord filed a cross-complaint for unpaid rent and related claims. After pretrial motions were resolved, the case proceeded to a jury trial, where the tenant’s claim focused on the alleged illegality of the unit and the landlord’s claim centered on breach of contract for unpaid rent. The jury found in favor of the landlord on both the tenant’s claim and the landlord’s cross-claim, awarding the landlord $14,700 in unpaid rent. The trial court denied the tenant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that it was proper for the jury to determine the legality of the unit as a factual issue, and that the landlord was not precluded from contesting the unit’s legality or from introducing evidence from city agencies. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the landlord. View "Emmons v. Jesso" on Justia Law

Starbuzz International, Inc. and Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc. distributed shisha, a product containing less than 50 percent tobacco, in California between October 2012 and September 2015. During this period, they paid over $2.8 million in excise taxes under the state’s Tobacco Products Tax Law, which imposed taxes on “tobacco products” as defined by statute. Starbuzz later filed refund claims, arguing their shisha did not meet the statutory definition and was not taxable. The Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) agreed, finding the definition ambiguous and resolving it in Starbuzz’s favor, granting full refunds. After a rehearing, a second OTA panel reaffirmed this decision.Following these administrative victories, Starbuzz requested payment of the refunds from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The Department, however, declined to issue the refunds immediately, citing a statutory requirement to review whether Starbuzz had collected the excise tax from its customers and, if so, whether those amounts had been returned to them. Starbuzz filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, arguing the Department had a ministerial duty to pay the refunds and was barred by res judicata from conducting further review. The trial court rejected Starbuzz’s arguments and denied the petition, entering judgment for the Department.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the Department’s obligation to review for excess tax reimbursement under section 30361.5 was distinct from the refund claim adjudicated by the OTA. The court found that res judicata did not apply because the primary right at issue in the OTA proceedings (freedom from improper taxation) was different from the right asserted in the current action (immediate refund without review for excess reimbursement). Thus, the Department could require a review before issuing refunds. View "Starbuzz International v. Department of Tax and Fee Administration" on Justia Law

A sitting judge of the San Diego County Superior Court applied to be appointed as the San Diego County Public Defender in 2023. The County informed him that he was ineligible for the position, citing Government Code section 27701, which requires that a person must have been a practicing attorney in all courts of the State for at least the year preceding the date of election or appointment. The judge, acting in his individual capacity, filed a declaratory relief action seeking a judicial determination that the statute only required one year of prior practice at any time before appointment, not necessarily the year immediately preceding.The case was initially filed in the San Diego County Superior Court but was reassigned to the Orange County Superior Court due to the nature of the parties. The parties agreed to resolve the statutory interpretation issue through a motion. The plaintiff argued that his interpretation avoided absurd results and constitutional issues, while the County maintained that the statute’s plain language required the one year of practice to be immediately before appointment. The Orange County Superior Court ruled in favor of the County, finding the statutory language unambiguous and declining to rewrite the statute.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The appellate court held that the language of section 27701 is unambiguous: eligibility for the office of public defender requires that the candidate has been a practicing attorney in all courts of the State for at least the one year immediately preceding election or appointment. The court rejected arguments regarding ambiguity, absurdity, and constitutional avoidance, finding no basis to depart from the statute’s plain meaning. The judgment of the Orange County Superior Court was affirmed. View "Washington v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

The defendant, a noncitizen, was charged in Los Angeles County with carjacking, second degree robbery, and resisting an executive officer. The jury found him guilty of carjacking and found true the allegation that he personally used a deadly weapon, but acquitted him of robbery. He had previously pleaded guilty to resisting an executive officer. He was sentenced to a total of 12 years in prison. Years later, after being released from criminal custody, the defendant faced removal proceedings in immigration court based on his conviction, and he sought to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7, arguing he had not understood the immigration consequences of going to trial or accepting a plea.The defendant filed a motion in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to vacate his conviction, providing evidence of indigency and making a prima facie showing for relief. He requested appointment of counsel for the hearing. The trial court denied his request, relying on People v. Fryhaat, and reasoning that appointed counsel was only required if the moving party was in federal immigration custody and unable to attend the hearing. The court proceeded with an evidentiary hearing and ultimately denied the motion, finding no evidence that an immigration-neutral plea offer had been made.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the trial court’s denial of appointed counsel. The appellate court held that the right to appointed counsel in section 1473.7 proceedings attaches when an indigent defendant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief and the court proceeds to an evidentiary hearing, regardless of whether the defendant is in federal immigration custody. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of the request for appointed counsel and a new hearing on the merits of the section 1473.7 motion. View "P. v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

After being diagnosed with lung cancer, Kirt Bjoin and his wife brought a lawsuit against J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (JMM) and others, alleging that Bjoin’s cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos dust generated when he cut JMM’s asbestos cement pipe with a power saw during the 1980s. Bjoin worked for his father’s company and later co-owned a pipe-laying business, during which time he frequently cut asbestos cement pipe without respiratory protection and claimed he was never warned of the associated risks. He argued that JMM should have provided warnings about the dangers of cutting the pipe with a power saw and the need for protective equipment.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County presided over a jury trial in which JMM asserted affirmative defenses, including that Bjoin was a sophisticated user who knew or should have known of the product’s dangers, and that using a power saw to cut the pipe was an unforeseeable misuse. The jury found in favor of JMM on these defenses and on the general negligence claim, concluding that Bjoin was a sophisticated user and that his method of cutting the pipe was not a reasonably foreseeable use. The trial court also granted JMM’s motion for nonsuit on the fraudulent concealment claim. Bjoin’s post-trial motion for a new trial was denied.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that Bjoin failed to meet the high burden required to overturn a jury verdict for insufficient evidence, particularly because he did not adequately address evidence supporting JMM’s defenses. The court also found that Bjoin waived his claims regarding the admission of Cal-OSHA regulations and the product misuse instruction by failing to provide proper legal argument and standards. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of JMM, upholding the jury’s findings and the trial court’s rulings. View "Bjoin v. J-M Manufacturing Co." on Justia Law