Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

The case involves 11 public charter schools (the Schools) seeking to overturn a decision by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB found that the Schools violated section 3550 of the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership by sending e-mails that tended to influence employees' decisions regarding union representation by United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA). The Schools argued that PERB's interpretation of section 3550 was erroneous and that the statute was unconstitutional as it violated free speech protections.The administrative law judge (ALJ) initially dismissed the allegations, finding that the e-mails did not contain threats or promises and thus did not violate the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). However, PERB, applying its new interpretation from Regents I and Regents II decisions, found that the e-mails violated section 3550 because they tended to influence employee choice regarding union membership. PERB rejected the Schools' defenses, including claims of business necessity and constitutional free speech rights.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court upheld PERB's interpretation of section 3550, finding it not clearly erroneous. The court also rejected the Schools' constitutional claims, determining that section 3550 regulates only government speech, which is not protected by the First Amendment or the California Constitution. The court found that the Schools, as public employers, and their administrators and Alliance CMO, as agents, were engaged in government speech when communicating about union matters.The court concluded that substantial evidence supported PERB's findings that the Schools could be held responsible for the e-mails sent by Alliance CMO and the School administrators under theories of actual and apparent authority. The court affirmed PERB's decision and order. View "Alliance Marce & Eva Stern Math & Sci. High Sch. v. PERB" on Justia Law

A Black man, known for his career in the NFL, was accused by an intellectually disabled woman of raping her at gunpoint during a babysitting job interview at his home. The jury found him guilty of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and false imprisonment, with firearm use in the first two offenses. He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. The prosecution argued that the police did not search his house due to his fame and race, suggesting a search would have caused controversy.The trial began in March 2020 but was paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic, resuming three months later. The jury acquitted him on two counts related to the victim's incapacity to consent. The trial court sentenced him in October 2020. The defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecution's statements violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 by appealing to racial bias.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the prosecution violated the Racial Justice Act by explicitly asserting that the defendant's race influenced the police's decision not to search his house, implying he gained an undeserved advantage at trial because he was Black. The court concluded that the prosecution's statements constituted racially discriminatory language under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(2). The court held that Penal Code section 745, subdivision (e)(2)(A) precludes harmless error analysis and mandates vacating the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment, vacated the conviction and sentence, and remanded for new proceedings consistent with the Racial Justice Act. View "P. v. Stubblefield" on Justia Law

Fredy Cordero Gudiel, a member of the West Side Locos gang, was convicted of second-degree murder for his involvement in the 2004 killing of William Maldonado, a member of the rival Toonerville gang. Gudiel, along with fellow gang members William Torres and Pedro Pena, attacked Maldonado after confronting him in Toonerville territory. During the attack, Pena and Torres struck Maldonado with bats, and Gudiel punched, kicked, and threw a bicycle at him. Maldonado sustained severe head injuries and died four days later from blunt head trauma.In 2007, a jury convicted Gudiel of second-degree murder, and he was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. Gudiel's conviction was affirmed on appeal. In 2022, Gudiel filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that he could not be convicted of murder under the amended laws. The trial court appointed counsel, and after a series of hearings, the court held an evidentiary hearing in May 2023.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's denial of Gudiel's petition for resentencing. The court found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Gudiel aided and abetted an implied malice murder. The court determined that Gudiel knew his co-defendants intended to commit a life-endangering act, intended to aid them, and acted with conscious disregard for human life. The court rejected Gudiel's argument that the trial court should have applied the "reckless indifference to human life" standard, noting that it is distinct from the "conscious disregard for human life" standard required for implied malice second-degree murder. View "P. v. Gudiel" on Justia Law

In 2020, Bryce D. Hovannisian and Lindsay E. Hovannisian purchased several tax-defaulted properties at a tax sale from the City of Fresno. Prior to the sale, the City had recorded special assessments for nuisance abatement costs and unpaid penalties against these properties. After the purchase, the County of Fresno issued tax bills to the appellants, which included these special assessments. The appellants sought to pay only the portion of the tax bills excluding the special assessments, arguing that the tax sale should have removed these liens. The County rejected their partial payments, leading the appellants to sue the City and the County to quiet title to the properties.The Superior Court of Fresno County sustained three separate demurrers filed by the City and the County, asserting that Revenue and Taxation Code section 4807 barred the suit as it impeded tax collection. The court granted leave to amend after the first two demurrers but denied it after the third. The court found that the appellants were required to pay the taxes and then seek a refund, rather than challenging the assessments prepayment.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's ruling. The appellate court held that the special assessments were collected at the same time and in the same manner as county taxes, thus falling under the definition of "taxes" in section 4801. Consequently, section 4807 barred the appellants' prepayment suit. The court also found that the appellants had an adequate remedy at law through a refund action, which precluded them from seeking equitable relief. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, and the appellants were directed to pay the taxes and seek a refund if necessary. View "Hovannisian v. City of Fresno" on Justia Law

Luis Mendez was charged with two misdemeanors in one case and several felonies and a misdemeanor in a separate case. The trial court found him mentally incompetent and suspended criminal proceedings in both cases. After determining that Mendez's mental competency was restored, the court reinstated all charges and denied Mendez's motion to dismiss the misdemeanor case under Penal Code section 1370.01.The Superior Court of Orange County initially suspended criminal proceedings in both cases and committed Mendez to the State Department of State Hospitals. Mendez's counsel moved to dismiss the misdemeanor charges, arguing that section 1370.01 applied, which does not provide for restoring competency in misdemeanor cases. The trial court denied the motion, stating that section 1370 applied because Mendez was charged with felonies, and reinstated criminal proceedings after finding Mendez competent.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that section 1370 applies to a person charged with a felony, even if misdemeanors are charged in a separate document. The court interpreted section 1367(b) to mean that section 1370.01 applies only when a defendant is charged with misdemeanors and no felonies. Since Mendez was charged with felonies, section 1370 applied to all charges. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in applying section 1370, reinstating criminal proceedings, or denying the motion to dismiss. The petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition was denied. View "Mendez v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves Lori Ann Wiley, who, along with Charles Wallace Hanson, engaged in a verbal altercation at a Kern High School District (KHSD) high school. The incident began when a school employee blocked a handicap parking spot they intended to use. Wiley later submitted a written complaint about the incident to the school. Subsequently, KHSD police officer Michael Whiting recommended various misdemeanor charges against Wiley, leading to her being cited and a prosecutor filing a criminal complaint with three misdemeanor charges. After a mistrial, the court dismissed Wiley’s charges in the interest of justice.Wiley sued KHSD police officers Edward Komin, Michael Whiting, Luis Peña, and Steven Alvidrez, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. She brought causes of action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the Bane Act, and common law torts for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer to Wiley’s causes of action in the second amended complaint on multiple grounds without leave to amend and granted a motion to strike Wiley’s punitive damages allegations without leave to amend.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision in part and reversed it in part. The appellate court held that Wiley failed to adequately plead her claims under section 1983 for malicious/retaliatory prosecution and abuse of process, as well as her claims under the Bane Act. The court also found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that Wiley did not sufficiently allege facts to support her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. However, the court granted Wiley leave to amend her section 1983 claim but denied leave to amend her other causes of action. The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting the motion to strike without leave to amend. View "Wiley v. Kern High School District" on Justia Law

Eric Woolard and Breonna Hall, residents of Greenhouse Condominiums, were involved in a physical altercation with their neighbors, Eric Smith and Stacy Thorne, in December 2019. Smith and Thorne sued Woolard, Hall, and Regent Real Estate Services, Inc. (Regent), the management company, for negligence and other claims. Woolard and Hall filed a cross-complaint against Regent and Greenhouse Community Association (Greenhouse), alleging negligence and other claims, asserting that Regent and Greenhouse failed to address ongoing harassment by neighbors, which led to the altercation.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of Regent and Greenhouse, finding no duty of care owed by them to intervene in the neighbor dispute or prevent the altercation. Woolard and Hall's motions to disqualify the trial judge were denied, and they did not seek writ review of these rulings.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Regent and Greenhouse had no duty to intervene in the neighbor dispute or prevent the altercation. The court found that Woolard and Hall failed to establish a legal duty of care breached by Regent and Greenhouse. Additionally, the court noted that claims of housing discrimination were not supported by evidence and were not properly raised as a separate cause of action. The court also held that the disqualification motions were not reviewable on appeal. The judgment in favor of Regent and Greenhouse was affirmed, and they were entitled to their costs on appeal. View "Woolard v. Regent Real Estate Services" on Justia Law