Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Ashley Howell, a temporary pre-licensed psychiatric technician, was employed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) from January 2, 2020, to January 24, 2020. Howell was terminated after DSH discovered she was on medical leave from her previous job due to a 2017 sexual assault, which she did not disclose during her pre-employment health screening. Howell filed a lawsuit against DSH, claiming mental and physical disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).The Napa County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of DSH on Howell’s claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process. Howell dismissed her claim for failure to prevent discrimination. The jury found in favor of Howell on her mental disability discrimination claim, awarding her $36,751.25 in lost earnings and health insurance benefits but nothing for pain and suffering. The court denied Howell’s motion for a new trial on non-economic damages and granted DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, striking the award for lost health insurance benefits. Howell was awarded $135,102 in attorney fees and costs but did not receive a ruling on her request for prejudgment interest.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny Howell’s motion for a new trial and to grant DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court found that Howell did not provide evidence of out-of-pocket expenses for lost health insurance benefits. The court also upheld the trial court’s award of $135,102 in attorney fees and costs, finding Howell’s request for $1.75 million to be unreasonable. However, the appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to address Howell’s request for prejudgment interest. View "Howell v. State Dept. of State Hospitals" on Justia Law

Mother appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order that removed her son, T.R., from her custody. The court found that Mother and Father had a history of violent altercations in T.R.’s presence, and that Mother’s behavior, including brandishing weapons, endangered T.R.’s safety. The court also found that Mother had mental and emotional challenges that rendered her incapable of providing regular care for T.R. Consequently, T.R. was declared a dependent child and removed from his parents.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition indicating that T.R. had no known Indian ancestry based on initial inquiries. However, the Department did not conduct a thorough ICWA inquiry with extended family members, and the juvenile court did not inquire about Mother’s possible Indian ancestry at subsequent hearings. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court selected legal guardianship as the permanent plan for T.R. and terminated dependency jurisdiction. The Department moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was moot because Mother did not appeal the termination order.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the juvenile court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with ICWA even after selecting legal guardianship and terminating dependency jurisdiction. The Department conceded that its ICWA inquiry was deficient. The Court of Appeal denied the motion to dismiss, conditionally affirmed the juvenile court’s order, and remanded the case with directions for the Department to comply with ICWA’s inquiry and notice provisions. The court emphasized the ongoing duty to inquire about T.R.’s possible Indian ancestry and ensure full compliance with ICWA. View "In re T.R." on Justia Law

In March 2011, Prentice Robinson was indicted by a grand jury for multiple criminal counts, including attempted murder, and admitted to using a firearm during the crime. He pleaded no contest to the charges and received a 22-year prison sentence. In January 2022, Robinson filed a petition for resentencing, arguing that the trial court erred in considering grand jury testimony. The People agreed that the grand jury testimony was inadmissible hearsay but disagreed on the proper remedy. The San Joaquin County District Attorney, as amicus curiae, argued that the grand jury transcripts were part of Robinson’s record of conviction and admissible under section 1172.6.The Superior Court of San Joaquin County denied Robinson’s petition for resentencing, finding that the grand jury transcripts were admissible and that Robinson was the direct perpetrator of the attempted murder. Robinson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the grand jury testimony and that it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3) created a hearsay exception for evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial, including grand jury testimony. The court found that the grand jury proceedings were analogous to preliminary hearings and that the procedural safeguards in place ensured the reliability of the testimony. The court also held that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation did not apply to section 1172.6 hearings, as they are postconviction collateral proceedings. The court concluded that Robinson’s due process rights were not violated, as he had the opportunity to present new evidence and challenge the grand jury testimony at the evidentiary hearing. View "People v. Robinson" on Justia Law

In 2018, Wendall Porter Muhammad pled no contest to attempted murder after stabbing Moses Sow during an altercation. Muhammad admitted to inflicting great bodily injury on Sow and using a deadly weapon, a knife. He was sentenced to nine years in prison. In January 2023, Muhammad filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that changes to sections 188 and 189 meant he could not be convicted of attempted murder under current law.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Muhammad's petition, concluding he failed to establish a prima facie case for relief. The court determined there was no possibility Muhammad was convicted on a theory of liability that was no longer valid, as he was the direct perpetrator of the attempted murder.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the record of conviction conclusively established Muhammad was the sole and direct perpetrator of the attempted murder. The court noted that the preliminary hearing transcript and Muhammad's admissions during his plea supported this conclusion. Since the natural and probable consequences doctrine applies only to accomplices, and Muhammad acted alone, he was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court also rejected Muhammad's procedural due process argument, stating that he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because the record of conviction demonstrated his ineligibility for relief as a matter of law. View "People v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

In 2013, Ulysses Gonzalez entered a no-contest plea to two charges of domestic violence against two different victims and admitted to an enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury, as well as various prior convictions. He was sentenced to 15 years in state prison. Following the passage of Senate Bill 483, Gonzalez requested resentencing in 2022, arguing that his sentence should be reduced due to changes in the law. The trial court struck the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement, reducing his sentence by one year but denied further reduction.The Santa Clara County Superior Court initially sentenced Gonzalez to 15 years, including enhancements for prior convictions and great bodily injury. In 2022, Gonzalez sought resentencing under Senate Bill 483, which invalidated certain enhancements. The trial court struck one enhancement, reducing his sentence to 14 years but refused to reduce it further, citing aggravating factors and Gonzalez's conduct in prison.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in not applying the requirements of amended section 1170, subdivision (b), which mandates that aggravating factors must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or stipulated by the defendant. The appellate court held that the trial court improperly relied on unproven aggravating factors and failed to consider Gonzalez's childhood trauma as required by section 1170, subdivision (b)(6). The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for resentencing, directing the trial court to apply the amended sentencing laws and consider all relevant factors. View "People v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Jose Nunez-Dosangos filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his ongoing detention in county jail pending trial on a charge of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. He was later released on his own recognizance after pleading guilty to a new charge of accessory after the fact, rendering his petition moot. However, the court decided to address the case due to its broad public interest and likelihood of recurrence. The petitioner had accrued presentence time-served and conduct credits exceeding the maximum potential sentence for the charged offense, and a probation report assessed him with a low risk of recidivism.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco initially denied bail and set the case for a preliminary hearing. The magistrate judge found insufficient evidence to show the petitioner knew of his co-defendant's intent to use the firearm, leading to the dismissal of the murder charge against him. The People refiled the murder charge, which was again dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner filed multiple motions for release, arguing his prolonged detention violated due process, but the trial court denied these motions, citing public safety concerns and the possibility of refiling the murder charge.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the petitioner's pretrial detention was excessive in relation to the government's public safety goals, constituting impermissible punishment in violation of due process principles. The court noted that the length of detention exceeded the maximum potential sentence and that the trial court erred in relying on the possibility of refiling the murder charge. The petition was ultimately dismissed as moot due to the petitioner's release. View "Nunez-Dosangos v. Superior Ct." 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 employment, Gonzalez signed an arbitration agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. He later filed a lawsuit against all ten LLCs, alleging various Labor Code violations and claiming they were joint employers. The non-Santa Monica entities moved to compel arbitration based on the agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica, but Gonzalez opposed, arguing they were not parties to the agreement.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 defendants were intertwined with the arbitration agreement. Gonzalez then dismissed his complaint against Nowhere Santa Monica, and the other entities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, 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 the employment agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. The court reasoned that Gonzalez's joint employment theory inherently linked his claims to the obligations under the employment agreement, which contained the arbitration clause. Therefore, the court reversed the lower court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration for the non-Santa Monica entities. 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, 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 concluded that Shen had care and control of Gordon during the massage, thus the exclusion applied to her injury. The court also found that the claims against Xin for negligent training fell within the exclusion, as negligent training is a form of negligent hiring, retention, 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 Gordon was under Shen's care and control during the massage. The court also held that the exclusion applied to the claims against Xin, as negligent training is encompassed within negligent employment and 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

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, concluding 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 was acting as an independent broker for the FAIR Plan policy and not on behalf of Farmers. Additionally, the court determined that Hughes failed to present evidence that could establish a triable issue regarding Farmers’ vicarious liability for Hartnett’s actions.The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, noting that Hughes offered no explanation for the delay in filing the motion and that allowing the amendment would have prejudiced Farmers and Hartnett. The judgment in favor of Farmers was affirmed, and Farmers was entitled to recover its costs on appeal. View "Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" 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 acts, 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 timely for over a year. However, JMM paid one invoice late, leading Trujillo to file a motion 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, despite acknowledging that the delay did not prejudice Trujillo. 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 and reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that section 1281.98 did not apply because the parties had 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), since the stipulation was primarily drafted by Trujillo. The appellate court remanded the case with instructions to deny Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration and to reinstate the stay of trial court proceedings pending the completion of arbitration. View "Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc." on Justia Law