Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Jack Greener, a Brazilian jiu jitsu (BJJ) student, suffered a fractured neck and spinal cord injury during a sparring session at Del Mar Jiu Jitsu Club, owned by M. Phelps, Inc. Greener sued, alleging negligence by his instructor, Francisco Iturralde, and vicarious liability by M. Phelps, Inc. The defendants argued that the primary assumption of risk doctrine absolved them of liability, as BJJ is an inherently risky sport.The Superior Court of San Diego County instructed the jury using option 2 of CACI No. 471, which holds a sports instructor liable if they unreasonably increased the risks to the student beyond those inherent in the sport. The jury found in favor of Greener, awarding him $46 million in damages. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its jury instructions and verdict form, and in excluding certain evidence.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court correctly instructed the jury on option 2 of CACI No. 471, as the evidence showed that Iturralde's actions unreasonably increased the risk of injury to Greener. The court emphasized that Iturralde, as an instructor with superior knowledge and skill, should be held to a different standard than a student coparticipant. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence, as it was either irrelevant or cumulative.The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly applied the increased risk standard and that the exclusion of evidence did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court suggested that the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions consider revising CACI No. 471 to minimize confusion and avoid the need to cross-refer to other instructions. View "Greener v. M. Phelps, Inc." on Justia Law

Two defendants, Fredi Analberto Lopez-Flores and Christian Alejandro May Quintero, were convicted of multiple sex crimes, including forcible rape, sodomy, and oral copulation in concert, after they abducted an inebriated woman, Jane Doe, from the streets of San Francisco, drove her 50 miles away, and assaulted her. The prosecution used terms like "monsters" and "predators" during closing arguments, which the defendants later claimed violated the California Racial Justice Act (RJA) and constituted prosecutorial misconduct.In the lower court, the jury found both defendants guilty on all counts. Lopez-Flores was also found to have a prior conviction, which was considered during sentencing. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences under section 667.6, subdivision (d), finding that the offenses occurred on separate occasions. The court also stated that even if this finding was incorrect, it would impose consecutive sentences under section 667.6, subdivision (c), based on the nature of the crimes and aggravating factors.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the prosecution's use of the terms "monsters" and "predators" did not violate the RJA, as these terms were race-neutral and based on the defendants' conduct. The court also found no prosecutorial misconduct, determining that the comments were within the permissible range of descriptive commentary based on the evidence. The court held that the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences under section 667.6, subdivision (c), and any potential error under subdivision (d) was harmless because the court provided adequate reasons for its discretionary decision. The judgments were affirmed. View "P. v. Quintero" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Lisa Lombardo, Daniel Bates, and James Bates sued Gramercy Court as heirs of Elizabeth Stein, alleging wrongful death, negligence, elder abuse, and gross negligence due to the care Stein received at Gramercy Court's nursing facility. Stein developed bedsores and died shortly after being transferred back to the hospital. Gramercy Court petitioned to compel arbitration based on an agreement Lombardo signed on Stein's behalf, but the trial court denied the petition.The Superior Court of Sacramento County found that Stein's durable power of attorney did not grant Lombardo the authority to sign arbitration agreements on Stein's behalf. The court also determined that Stein did not give Lombardo ostensible authority through her actions. Additionally, the court ruled that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable against Lombardo's or the other plaintiffs' individual claims.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that Lombardo did not have actual or ostensible authority to bind Stein to the arbitration agreement. The durable power of attorney did not explicitly grant Lombardo the authority to enter into arbitration agreements, and there was no evidence that Stein's conduct led Gramercy Court to believe Lombardo had such authority. The court also concluded that the arbitration agreement did not apply to the plaintiffs' individual claims, as Lombardo was not a party to the agreement in her individual capacity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order denying Gramercy Court's petition to compel arbitration. View "Lombardo v. Gramercy Court" on Justia Law

K.M., the mother of minor Z.H., appealed a judgment that terminated her parental rights after the child's father, I.H., and paternal grandmother, C.L., filed a petition under Family Code section 7822. The petition alleged that K.M. had abandoned Z.H. by leaving him in the care of I.H. and C.L. without support or communication for over a year. The trial court found that K.M. had abandoned Z.H. and terminated her parental rights.The Los Angeles County Superior Court consolidated the case with a related custody case and stayed proceedings in the latter. During the trial, evidence showed that K.M. had not visited Z.H. since December 2017 and had not provided financial support since January 2020. The court found that K.M. had abandoned her parental role and focused more on her struggles than on Z.H.'s best interests.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the judgment terminating K.M.'s parental rights, finding no error or abuse of discretion by the trial court. The appellate court noted that K.M. failed to show that the trial court was required to consider any legal impediment to the proposed adoption when terminating her parental rights.However, the appellate court identified a clerical error in the judgment regarding the termination of I.H.'s parental rights. The trial court had intended for I.H. to retain his parental rights. The appellate court remanded the case with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that I.H. retains his parental rights. View "In re Z.H." on Justia Law

Angel Garcia and Armando Alvarado, members of the Logan Red Steps gang in San Diego, were convicted by a jury of murdering Eduardo S., attempting to murder Ruben T., and committing robbery. Alvarado was also found guilty of shooting at an occupied structure, and Garcia of an additional robbery. The jury found true various firearm allegations and a robbery murder special circumstance. The trial court sentenced both to life without parole for the murder and special circumstance.The Superior Court of San Diego County admitted gang-related evidence despite bifurcating the gang enhancements. The court excluded evidence that Eduardo had stolen a BB gun and refused to instruct on lesser included offenses of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. Garcia argued cumulative errors required reversal, and both appellants claimed their sentences constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Alvarado also contended errors regarding a firearm enhancement and concurrent sentencing for shooting at an occupied dwelling. The People conceded Alvarado was entitled to additional custody credit and correction of the abstract of judgment.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, found the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting gang-related evidence, which was more prejudicial than probative and not relevant to proving the substantive crimes. The court concluded this error likely influenced the jury's verdict, particularly affecting the credibility contest between Ruben and Alvarado. Consequently, the court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not address the instructional error claims, as they were moot given the reversal of the convictions. View "P. v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Christina Leeper entered into an independent contractor agreement with Shipt, Inc. to provide services as a Shipt shopper. The agreement included an arbitration clause requiring all disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration. Leeper filed a complaint against Shipt and its parent company, Target Corporation, under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), alleging that Shipt misclassified her and other workers as independent contractors, violating multiple provisions of the Labor Code. Leeper sought civil penalties and injunctive relief on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Shipt and Target's motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that Leeper's PAGA action did not include any individual claims subject to arbitration under the parties' agreement. The court concluded that the action was solely a representative PAGA suit without any individual causes of action to compel to arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA claim based on the unambiguous statutory language and legislative history. Consequently, the court directed the lower court to issue a new order compelling arbitration of Leeper's individual PAGA claim and staying the litigation of the representative PAGA claim portion of the lawsuit. The appellate court awarded costs on appeal to Shipt and Target. View "Leeper v. Shipt, Inc." on Justia Law

Casa Mira Homeowners Association (Casa Mira) applied for a coastal development permit to construct a 257-foot seawall to protect a condominium complex, sewer line, apartment building, and a segment of the Coastal Trail in Half Moon Bay from erosion. The California Coastal Commission (Commission) denied the request for the condominiums and sewer line, built in 1984, but approved a 50-foot seawall for the apartment building, built in 1972, and concluded that relocating the Coastal Trail inland was a feasible alternative to shoreline armoring.The San Mateo County Superior Court granted Casa Mira's petition for a writ of mandate, vacating the Commission's decision. The court found that the Commission misinterpreted "existing structures" in the California Coastal Act to mean structures existing before January 1, 1977, and concluded that the Commission's finding regarding the feasibility of relocating the Coastal Trail was not supported by substantial evidence.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that "existing structures" in section 30235 of the Coastal Act refers to structures that existed before the Act's effective date of January 1, 1977. Therefore, the condominiums and sewer line built in 1984 are not entitled to shoreline armoring. However, the court also found that the Commission's decision to relocate the Coastal Trail inland was not supported by substantial evidence, as the original staff report indicated that rerouting the trail would sacrifice its aesthetic and recreational value and was not a viable alternative.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the interpretation of "existing structures" but affirmed the trial court's determination that there was no substantial evidence supporting the Commission's finding that armoring was unnecessary to protect the Coastal Trail. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs of appeal. View "Casa Mira Homeowners Assn. v. Cal. Coastal Com." on Justia Law

Jason Robert Hodge filed a notice of appeal from a trial court order denying two requests for relief: a motion under the Racial Justice Act and a request for resentencing under section 1172.1. Hodge had pleaded no contest in 2012 to three felony counts of battery and assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 21 years. On January 5, 2024, Hodge filed a motion for relief due to discrimination and a request for recall of sentence and resentencing. The trial court denied both requests in a single order dated February 6, 2024.The trial court declined to exercise its discretion to recall Hodge’s sentence under section 1172.1. Hodge appealed, and appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo, raising no arguable issues. Hodge filed his own supplemental brief but did not address the issue of appealability. The appellate court requested briefing on the appealability of the trial court’s denial of Hodge’s request for resentencing in light of People v. Loper. The parties subsequently briefed the issue.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, concluded that neither component of the trial court’s order was appealable. The court held that the trial court’s decision not to exercise its discretion to recall Hodge’s sentence did not affect Hodge’s substantial rights under section 1237, subdivision (b), because the trial court had no statutory obligation to act on Hodge’s request. Additionally, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider Hodge’s motion under the Racial Justice Act, as incarcerated defendants whose convictions are final may only raise claims under that act in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "P. v. Hodge" on Justia Law

Pauline Mary Huff filed a class action and a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action against her former employer, Interior Specialists, Inc., alleging various wage-and-hour violations. Huff opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it was signed by someone else named "William" in DocuSign. The trial court found sufficient evidence that Huff consented to the agreement and granted the motion to compel arbitration.The trial court consolidated the class and PAGA actions. Interior Specialists then moved to compel Huff’s PAGA claims to arbitration. The trial court reiterated its earlier finding that Huff validly signed the agreement and, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, ordered Huff’s individual PAGA claims to arbitration and dismissed her nonindividual PAGA claims without prejudice for lack of standing.Huff appealed the October 21, 2022 order, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing her nonindividual PAGA claims and in finding that she signed the arbitration agreement. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, concluded that Huff timely appealed the October 21 order. On the merits, the court reversed the dismissal of Huff’s nonindividual PAGA claims based on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which rejected Viking River’s interpretation of California law on standing. The court did not address Huff’s arguments concerning the electronic signature, as the reversal based on Adolph rendered it unnecessary.The court remanded the case with directions to stay Huff’s nonindividual PAGA claims pending the completion of arbitration. Huff was awarded her costs on appeal. View "Huff v. Interior Specialists, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff leased a new 2021 Volkswagen Atlas from Galpin Volkswagen, LLC, and experienced several issues with the vehicle, including problems with the check engine and airbag lights, ignition, and door locks. After multiple repair attempts and delays due to a backordered part, the plaintiff requested Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VWGA) to repurchase the vehicle. VWGA offered to repurchase the vehicle, including reimbursement for payments made and additional attorney fees, but included a financial confidentiality provision in the offer. Plaintiff did not accept the offer and continued to use the vehicle.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, VWGA and Galpin, on the plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims. The court found that VWGA’s offer to repurchase the vehicle was prompt and compliant with the Song-Beverly Act, including the calculation of the mileage offset and the inclusion of a financial confidentiality provision. The court concluded that the plaintiff could not prove damages for the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, as VWGA’s offer exceeded the restitution amount required by the Act.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court held that VWGA’s offer was prompt and compliant with the Act, including the use of the vehicle’s agreed value for the mileage offset calculation. The court also determined that the financial confidentiality provision was permissible under the Act. As a result, the plaintiff could not prove the necessary elements for breach of express or implied warranty claims, and the summary judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc." on Justia Law