Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Aleksia Lindsay filed an amended class action complaint against Patenaude & Felix, APC, and Transworld Systems Inc., alleging unfair debt collection practices. Lindsay had defaulted on $60,000 in student loans, and after receiving incomplete and inaccurate information from Transworld, Patenaude initiated two debt collection lawsuits against her. Lindsay later discovered that both entities had a history of unethical collection practices, leading to actions by various regulatory bodies. After the lawsuits against her were dismissed, Lindsay received another demand for payment and subsequently filed the class action complaint.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County struck Lindsay's complaint, relying on the anti-SLAPP law, and ruled that the public interest exception did not apply. Lindsay argued that the trial court erred in this decision. The trial court concluded that although the three conditions of the public interest exception were met, the action was not brought solely in the public interest because Lindsay sought damages.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that the action was brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public, as the relief sought by Lindsay was identical to that sought for the plaintiff class. The court also found that seeking damages did not preclude the application of the public interest exception. The court concluded that the action met all three conditions of the public interest exception: it did not seek greater or different relief, it would enforce an important right affecting the public interest and confer a significant benefit, and private enforcement was necessary and placed a disproportionate financial burden on Lindsay.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, exempting Lindsay's action from the anti-SLAPP law and entitling her to costs on appeal. View "Lindsay v. Patenaude & Felix" on Justia Law

Antonio German Armas was convicted of distributing and possessing child pornography. He was placed on two years of formal probation, set to expire on August 16, 2023. However, Armas violated the terms of his probation twice, leading to extensions of his probation, with the final expiration date set for June 9, 2024. Armas appealed the trial court's first order finding that he violated the terms of his probation.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County found that Armas violated his probation terms and imposed a suspended sentence of two years and eight months, reinstating formal probation with a new expiration date of January 20, 2024. Armas's appeal from this order was initially rejected as untimely, but he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was granted, allowing his appeal to proceed. Meanwhile, the trial court found another probation violation but reinstated probation instead of imposing the suspended sentence, extending the probation to June 9, 2024. Armas appealed this second order, which was affirmed by the appellate court.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. By the time of the review, Armas had completed his probation. The court held that the appeal was moot because Armas had already served his probation term, and any decision would have no practical effect. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that potential future consequences of the probation violation were too speculative to prevent a finding of mootness. The court relied on precedents that established that the completion of a probation term renders an appeal moot unless there are ongoing adverse collateral consequences, which were not present in this case. View "People v. Armas" on Justia Law

Tam Steven Nguyen committed various crimes at the age of 22 and was convicted in 2003 of attempted murder, kidnapping, and assault with a firearm. The jury also found true firearm allegations. He was sentenced to a determinate term of 14 years, an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, and a life term with the possibility of parole. While incarcerated, Nguyen earned various credits, including good conduct and educational merit credits. His minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) is set for February 2036, and his youth parole eligible date (YPED) is set for October 2026.Nguyen petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus in 2022, arguing that he should be allowed to use all earned credits to advance his YPED, not just educational merit credit. The trial court denied his petition. Nguyen then petitioned the California Court of Appeal, which summarily denied the petition. The California Supreme Court granted review, ordered the appellate court to vacate its order, and issue an order to show cause.The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and held that Nguyen's right to equal protection was not violated. The court found that youth and nonyouth offenders are not similarly situated for the purposes of the challenged regulations, as youth offenders have two parole eligibility dates (MEPD and YPED) while nonyouth offenders have only one (MEPD). The court also determined that there is a rational basis for the regulation, as it aligns with the legislative intent to provide youth offenders with a meaningful opportunity for release while maintaining a relatively fixed YPED. Consequently, the court denied Nguyen's petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "In re Nguyen" on Justia Law

JHVS Group, LLC and its members, Jasanjot Singh and Harshana Kaur, purchased a 66.4-acre pistachio orchard from Shawn Slate and Dina Slate for approximately $2.6 million. The Slates agreed to carry a loan for $1,889,600, and JHVS made a $700,000 down payment. The agreement included provisions for interest payments and additional payments coinciding with expected crop payments. JHVS alleged that the Slates and their brokers, Randy Hayer and SVN Executive Commercial Advisors, misrepresented material facts about the property, including water rights and the value of the 2022 crop. JHVS claimed the actual value of the crop was significantly lower than represented, and they fell behind on payments, leading the Slates to record a notice of default.JHVS filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Madera County, raising seven causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, rescission based on fraud or mutual mistake, and injunctive relief to stop the foreclosure process. JHVS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale, arguing that the Slates and Hayer had lied about water restrictions and misrepresented the crop's value. The trial court granted the preliminary injunction after the defendants did not appear or file a response.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court lacked fundamental jurisdiction over the Slates because they were never served with the summons and complaint. The appellate court determined that the trial court's order was void as to the Slates due to the lack of proper service and reversed the preliminary injunction order with respect to the Slates. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "JHVS Group, LLC v. Slate" on Justia Law

Stephnie Trujillo filed a complaint against her former employer, J-M Manufacturing Company (JMM), and four former coworkers, alleging unlawful sexual/gender discrimination, harassment, failure to prevent such actions, retaliation, and seeking injunctive relief. The parties negotiated and entered into a post-dispute stipulation for arbitration, which was approved by the trial court. Arbitration commenced, and JMM paid the arbitrator’s invoices for over a year. However, JMM failed to pay an invoice by the due date of September 12, 2022, but paid it immediately upon being reminded on October 18, 2022. Trujillo then sought to withdraw from arbitration under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which the trial court granted.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration, finding that JMM’s late payment constituted a material breach under section 1281.98, which does not allow exceptions for inadvertent delays or lack of prejudice. The court lifted the stay on trial court proceedings, allowing the case to proceed in court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that section 1281.98 did not apply because the parties entered into a post-dispute stipulation to arbitrate, not a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. Additionally, JMM was not considered the “drafting party” as defined by section 1280, subdivision (e), which refers to the company that included a pre-dispute arbitration provision in a contract. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to deny Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration and to reinstate the stay of trial court proceedings pending completion of arbitration. View "Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Erin Hughes, the plaintiff, obtained two homeowner’s insurance policies for her property in Malibu. One policy, through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan), covered fire loss, while the other, issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), did not. After a fire caused significant damage to her property, Hughes filed a lawsuit against Farmers, alleging it was vicariously liable for the negligence of its agent, Maritza Hartnett, who assisted her in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy, resulting in underinsurance for fire loss.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Farmers’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that Hartnett was not acting within the scope of her agency with Farmers when she assisted Hughes in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy. The court also denied Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Hartnett was not acting as Farmers’ actual or ostensible agent when she helped Hughes obtain the FAIR Plan policy. The court found that Hartnett’s agent appointment agreement with Farmers did not include authority to transact insurance business on behalf of Farmers for policies issued by unrelated carriers like FAIR Plan. Additionally, the court determined that Hughes failed to present evidence showing that Farmers’ conduct could have led her to reasonably believe Hartnett was acting as its agent in procuring the FAIR Plan policy. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, citing her failure to provide an excuse for the delay in filing the motion and the potential prejudice to Farmers. View "Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

Edgar Gonzalez worked for Nowhere Santa Monica, one of ten related LLCs operating Erewhon markets in Los Angeles. As a condition of his employment, he signed an arbitration agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. Gonzalez later filed a class action lawsuit against all ten Nowhere entities, alleging various Labor Code violations. He claimed that all entities were his joint employers, sharing control over his employment conditions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the motion to compel arbitration for Nowhere Santa Monica but denied it for the other entities, finding no evidence that Gonzalez's claims against the non-signatory entities were intertwined with his claims against Nowhere Santa Monica. Gonzalez then dismissed his complaint against Nowhere Santa Monica, and the other entities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Gonzalez was equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration with the non-Santa Monica entities because his claims against them were intimately founded in and intertwined with his employment agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. The court reasoned that Gonzalez's joint employer theory inherently linked his claims to the obligations under the employment agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. Therefore, it would be unfair for Gonzalez to claim joint employment for liability purposes while denying the arbitration agreement's applicability.The appellate court reversed the lower court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration for the non-Santa Monica entities, concluding that all of Gonzalez's claims should be arbitrated. View "Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC" on Justia Law

In 2015, Zongwei Shen, owner of a massage spa, purchased a commercial insurance policy from Continental Casualty Company, which included an exclusion for abuse or molestation. In 2019, Toiah Gordon, Morganne Mersadie Root, and Karina Carrero sued Shen and his wife, Zhong Xin, alleging Shen sexually assaulted them during massage sessions. After Continental declined to provide a defense, Shen and Xin stipulated to liability, resulting in a $6.8 million judgment against them. Shen and Xin assigned their rights against Continental to the plaintiffs in exchange for a covenant not to execute the judgment. The plaintiffs then sued Continental for breach of contract and related claims.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Continental's motion for summary judgment, finding that the abuse or molestation exclusion in the insurance policy applied. The court held that the exclusion's language was unambiguous and did not require Shen to have "exclusive or complete control" over the plaintiffs. The court also found that the claims against Xin for negligent training fell within the exclusion, as negligent training is a form of negligent employment or supervision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the abuse or molestation exclusion applied to Shen's actions because the plaintiffs were under Shen's care and control during the massages. The court also held that the exclusion applied to Xin's alleged negligent training of Shen, as it fell within the scope of negligent employment or supervision. Consequently, Continental had no duty to defend Shen and Xin, and the summary judgment in favor of Continental was affirmed. View "Gordon v. Continental Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Allison J. Littlefield filed a verified petition against Scott Littlefield, David Littlefield, and Denise Sobel, who are co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust and its sub-trusts. The petition alleged misuse of Trust funds, concealment of information, conversion of Allison’s personal property, wrongful removal of Allison from the board, and imposition of restrictions on her and her husband’s use of the Ranch. Allison sought removal of the co-trustees, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the Trust, and declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the co-trustees from harassing, disparaging, or defaming her.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the co-trustees' special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the co-trustees failed to show that Allison’s petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison’s request for attorney’s fees, finding that the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the co-trustees did not meet their burden of showing that the petition arose from protected activity. The court found that the co-trustees’ motion was overreaching and did not identify specific allegations of protected activity. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of Allison’s request for attorney’s fees, determining that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous because no reasonable attorney would conclude that the motion had merit. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney’s fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law

In 2011, a defendant was convicted in California of multiple sex offenses, including lewd acts on a minor and oral copulation with a child under ten. His sentence was enhanced due to a prior Michigan conviction for assault with intent to commit sexual penetration. Years later, he sought to have the enhancement removed under the new Penal Code section 1172.75, arguing that out-of-state convictions should not be considered sexually violent offenses under the new law. The trial court denied his request, concluding that the Michigan conviction was indeed a sexually violent offense, making him ineligible for relief.The Superior Court of Riverside County initially sentenced the defendant to a determinate 15-year prison term, plus an indeterminate term of 30 years to life, including a one-year enhancement for the prior Michigan conviction. The judgment was affirmed on appeal in 2012. In 2023, the case was revisited to determine eligibility for recall and resentencing under section 1172.75. The defendant argued that his Michigan conviction did not disqualify him from relief, but the court disagreed, finding that out-of-state convictions could still be considered sexually violent offenses.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that out-of-state convictions could be considered sexually violent offenses if they included all the elements of the offenses listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b). The court found that the Michigan conviction met these criteria, and thus, the defendant was not entitled to resentencing under section 1172.75. The order denying relief was affirmed. View "People v. Vicencio" on Justia Law