Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves a defendant who, after a series of threatening incidents toward his former girlfriend, attacked her and her friend, Daniel Martinez, outside her workplace. The defendant dragged his ex-girlfriend by the hair while wielding a knife. When Martinez intervened, the defendant stabbed him multiple times. These events led to the defendant being charged and later convicted of several offenses, including the attempted murder of Martinez, assault with a deadly weapon, stalking, and battery involving a dating relationship. He was acquitted of the attempted murder charge related to his ex-girlfriend. Enhancements for personal use of a deadly weapon and infliction of great bodily injury were found true, and the defendant was sentenced to 25 years and eight months in prison.Following his conviction, the defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that his case might qualify for relief under changes to the law that limited certain doctrines of murder liability. The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied his petition at the prima facie stage, reasoning that the defendant was convicted as a direct perpetrator with intent to kill, not under any vicarious liability theory such as the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The court also declined to act on his request for recall of sentence under section 1172.1.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo. It affirmed the denial of the section 1172.6 petition, holding that the record of conviction conclusively established the defendant’s ineligibility for relief because he was not convicted under a theory of vicarious liability. The appellate court also dismissed the portion of the appeal pertaining to the section 1172.1 request, finding it was not an appealable order. View "People v. Anaya" on Justia Law

The appellant, a Ventura County Deputy Sheriff, suffered two work-related back injuries in 2014 and 2015. Medical evaluations revealed degenerative disc disease and herniation at the L5-S1 level. Multiple physicians recommended surgical intervention, and the County authorized surgery to address his condition. However, the appellant declined the recommended procedures, citing concerns about surgical outcomes and referencing anecdotal experiences of colleagues. Later, his condition progressed, and more extensive surgery was suggested, but authorization for additional procedures was denied due to insufficient evidence. Despite ongoing pain, the appellant also declined to participate in a recommended home exercise program and a work hardening regimen.After the appellant applied for service-connected disability retirement, his application was challenged by the County and assigned to VCERA’s hearing officer for review. During the administrative hearing, the appellant testified about his refusal of surgery and physical therapy, while medical experts presented conflicting views on his prognosis and ability to return to work. The hearing officer found that the appellant had unreasonably refused recommended medical treatments with a high probability of success, and that his refusal likely worsened his condition, making him ineligible for service-connected disability retirement benefits. The Board adopted these findings and denied his application.The Superior Court of Ventura County denied the appellant’s petition for a writ of administrative mandate, concluding that his unreasonable refusal of authorized surgery and other treatments constituted valid grounds to deny benefits under the doctrine of avoidable consequences/mitigation of damages. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed this decision. The court held that a disability retirement application may be denied if the disability is caused, continued, or aggravated by an unreasonable refusal to undergo medical treatment, even if the refused treatment is no longer effective due to the passage of time. View "Mendoza v. Bd. of Retirement of the Ventura County" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in 2003 of voluntary manslaughter, robbery, possession of a firearm, and received various sentence enhancements, including a prior strike, a firearm enhancement, and seven prior prison term enhancements, resulting in a sentence of 42 years and four months. Two restitution fines of $5,000 each were also imposed. In 2023, following legislative changes, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified the defendant as eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, which invalidated certain prior prison term enhancements. The defendant sought to have those enhancements stricken and also requested further modifications, including striking the prior strike and firearm enhancement, and imposing a lesser term for the manslaughter conviction.At the Superior Court of Sacramento County, during the resentencing hearing held in October 2024, the court struck the seven prior prison term enhancements, reducing the sentence to 35 years and four months. However, the court declined to strike the prior strike and firearm enhancement, and reimposed the original restitution fines and victim restitution. The updated abstract of judgment noted the restitution fines were “stayed.” The defendant appealed, raising constitutional and statutory challenges to the reimposition of the upper term, the denial of his request to strike the firearm enhancement under section 1385, and the continued imposition of the restitution fine.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held that the trial court did not err by reimposing the upper term for voluntary manslaughter without requiring new findings of aggravating circumstances under amended section 1170, subdivision (b), because section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) exempts previously imposed upper terms from these requirements. The court also found no abuse of discretion or statutory error in declining to dismiss the firearm enhancement, as no applicable mitigating factors were established. However, the court concluded that the restitution fine originally imposed in 2003 must be vacated under section 1465.9, as more than ten years had elapsed. The judgment was affirmed as modified to vacate the restitution fine. View "P. v. Salstrom" on Justia Law

Robert Rinker and Cindi Rinker, formerly married and sharing custody of their son, W., have a history of contentious interactions related to custody and visitation. After their separation, Robert was granted primary physical custody with monitored, and later unmonitored, visitation for Cindi. Beginning in late 2023, Robert alleged that Cindi’s behavior had deteriorated, including stalking him and W., entering his home and car without permission, making persistent and unwanted contact, and threatening communications. He claimed these actions caused fear for his and his son’s safety, prompting him to seek a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) and a return to monitored visitation for Cindi.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Family Court, held a hearing on Robert’s DVRO request. Both parties testified, with Robert detailing incidents of obsessive and alarming behavior, and Cindi admitting much of the conduct but denying malicious intent, attributing her actions to concern for her son and her mental health issues. The court found evidence of obsessive behavior by Cindi but concluded that Robert had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that her conduct constituted abuse under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), focusing on whether her actions were intentionally threatening. The court denied the DVRO but ordered professional monitoring of Cindi’s visitation due to the “alarming” nature of her behavior.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It found that the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard by narrowly focusing on Cindi’s intent rather than considering the totality of her conduct and its impact, as required by the DVPA. The appellate court held that Robert had met his burden to show past acts of abuse, including stalking and disturbing the peace, regardless of Cindi’s intent. The court reversed the denial of the DVRO and remanded with instructions to enter the restraining order as requested. View "Rinker v. Rinker" on Justia Law

A longtime deputy sheriff was convicted by a federal jury of mail and wire fraud after she submitted an insurance claim for items stolen during a burglary at her home, some of which she falsely claimed as her own but actually belonged to her employer, the sheriff’s office. She also used her employer’s fax machine and cover sheet in communicating with the insurance company and misrepresented her supervisor’s identity. The criminal conduct arose after a romantic relationship with a former inmate ended badly, leading to the burglary, but the fraud conviction was based on her false insurance claim, not on the relationship or the burglary itself.Following her conviction, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) determined that her crimes constituted conduct “arising out of or in the performance of her official duties” under Government Code section 7522.72, part of the Public Employees Pension Reform Act, and partially forfeited her pension. The administrative law judge and the San Francisco Superior Court both upheld CalPERS’s decision, reasoning that her actions were sufficiently connected to her employment, particularly in her misuse of employer property and resources and in the context of her relationship with the former inmate.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the statute requires a specific causal nexus between the criminal conduct and the employee’s official duties, not merely any job-related connection. The court found that the deputy’s fraudulent insurance claim, although it referenced employer property and resources, did not arise out of or in the performance of her official duties as required by the statute. Accordingly, the pension forfeiture determination was set aside. View "Myres v. Bd. of Admin. for CalPERS" on Justia Law

A former employee worked for a retail company and, during his employment, signed an arbitration agreement that included a waiver of class, collective, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) representative actions. This agreement stated that any dispute must be brought in arbitration on an individual basis and not as a representative action. The agreement also included a severability clause, specifying that if any part of the waiver was found invalid, a private attorney general claim would have to be litigated in court.After his employment ended, the employee filed a lawsuit against the company under PAGA, alleging wage-and-hour violations on behalf of himself, other employees, and the State of California. The claims and requested relief were pleaded in the aggregate, and the complaint did not separately seek penalties for violations suffered by the plaintiff alone.The employer moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana allowed for arbitration of the “individual” component of a PAGA claim even if representative claims could not be arbitrated. The Alameda County Superior Court denied the motion, reasoning that there is no such thing as an “individual PAGA claim” under California law.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that, based on the language of the arbitration agreement, the parties did not agree to arbitrate individual PAGA claims. The court reasoned that as of the time the agreement was drafted, there was no clear distinction in California law between “individual” and “non-individual” PAGA claims. Therefore, the court declined to compel arbitration of the PAGA claim and affirmed the lower court’s order. Costs on appeal were awarded to the employee. View "LaCour v. Marshalls of California" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over possession and damages related to a residential property in Malibu. In 2019, the plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against several defendants, including the defendant, seeking possession of the property and damages. The defendant responded with an answer denying several key allegations, including the plaintiff’s ownership of the property and the claimed fair rental value. The plaintiff later obtained leave to file a first amended complaint, which reclassified the action and asserted new causes of action but relied on the same underlying facts as the original complaint. The defendant did not file a new answer to this amended complaint.The Los Angeles County Superior Court entered a default against the defendant after he failed to answer the amended complaint and subsequently entered a default judgment awarding significant damages. The defendant moved multiple times to set aside the default judgment. The court eventually denied his postjudgment motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), which allows courts to set aside void judgments. The defendant timely appealed these orders.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed whether the original answer sufficed to controvert the first amended complaint’s allegations and precluded entry of default. The appellate court held that because the defendant’s original answer denied essential factual allegations that remained central to the amended complaint—including ownership and valuation—the default judgment was improper. The court found that a defendant’s original answer stands as a response to reasserted facts in an amended complaint, and default cannot be entered on allegations previously denied. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and the trial court’s order denying the motion to set aside default, remanding with instructions to vacate the default and default judgment. View "Ammari v. Ammari" on Justia Law

A former employee brought a single-count action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) against his previous employer, alleging violations of various wage-and-hour provisions of the California Labor Code. The employee had previously signed an arbitration agreement that included waivers of class action, collective action, and representative PAGA claims, with a severability clause stating that any invalidation of the PAGA waiver would require such claims to be litigated in court, not arbitrated. The complaint sought civil penalties on behalf of the employee, other current and former employees, and the State of California, but did not separately seek penalties for violations suffered by the employee personally.The employer moved to compel arbitration, arguing that recent federal and state precedent required arbitration of the "individual component" of the PAGA claim, relying on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana and subsequent California cases. The Superior Court of Alameda County denied the motion, reasoning that under California law there was no such thing as an "individual PAGA claim" and, therefore, the claim could not be compelled to arbitration.Reviewing the denial, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, considered the parties’ arguments regarding the interpretation of the arbitration agreement and relevant case law. The court held that, based on the language of the agreement and the intent of the parties at the time it was signed, there was no clear agreement to arbitrate individual PAGA claims if the PAGA waiver was invalidated. The court reasoned that, although recent decisions allow splitting PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims, the agreement in this case did not provide for such arbitration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "LaCour v. Marshalls of California" on Justia Law

The case concerns a child who was removed from his parents due to domestic violence, the father’s criminal history, and the mother’s untreated mental illness. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services placed the child with a caretaker and provided reunification services to the parents, but these efforts were unsuccessful. Parental rights were ultimately terminated, and adoption was set as the permanent plan. Throughout the proceedings, the Department investigated whether the child might have Native American heritage, as required under California law analogous to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the Department’s efforts to determine the child's possible Native American ancestry. The parents had initially denied any such heritage, but at one point the father suggested there might be Native American ancestry. The Department interviewed or attempted to contact numerous relatives and family associates about possible Native American ancestry, but did not contact four specific known relatives. After reviewing the Department's inquiry, the juvenile court found there was no reason to know that ICWA applied in this case.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the adequacy of the Department’s inquiry under the deferential standard established by the California Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal held that the Department had adequately discharged its duty of reasonable inquiry by asking those persons it would normally contact whether the child might have Native American heritage, and was not required to contact every possible relative. The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s order, explicitly disagreeing with a contrary approach that would impose broader duties on the Department. View "In re K.G." on Justia Law

After moving out of their condominium due to mold, Brenda Lee Allen and her family stayed at the Ontario Airport Inn Hotel, owned by Anil Bhula Patel. After more than 30 days, Allen’s funds ran out, and she requested extra time to pay rent, which was refused by the hotel manager, Luis Mejia. On April 19, 2020, while Allen and her family were moving out, an altercation occurred involving Allen, Mejia, and Patel. Allen alleged that Patel forcibly entered her room, threw her belongings into the hallway, struck her, and pushed her against the wall, causing her to suffer posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other serious health issues.Allen filed suit against Patel and his company, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for battery, assault, and related claims. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County bifurcated the trial to separate liability and compensatory damages from punitive damages. The jury awarded Allen over $1 million in compensatory damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Before the punitive damages phase, two jurors were unavailable, leading the trial court to declare a mistrial on that issue. Patel subsequently moved for a new trial, arguing attorney misconduct and other trial irregularities.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court conducted an independent review and found substantial evidence of misconduct by Allen’s attorney, including knowingly misleading statements about medical causation, introduction of prejudicial and inflammatory evidence, improper closing arguments violating the golden rule and reptile theory, and attacks on defense counsel’s character. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order granting a new trial on liability and compensatory damages, finding no abuse of discretion and concluding that the issue of punitive damages was moot. View "Allen v. Patel" on Justia Law