Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute between two local water management agencies, Mission Springs Water District (Mission Springs) and Desert Water Agency (Desert Water), over who should be the regional groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) responsible for managing groundwater in the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County, California. The dispute arose from the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which requires the creation of GSAs to manage groundwater basins. Desert Water claimed to be the exclusive GSA within its statutory boundaries, which encompass most of Mission Springs' boundaries. Mission Springs challenged this claim and also sought resolution of competing claims to GSA authority for an additional three-square-mile area outside of Desert Water’s statutory boundaries.The Superior Court of Riverside County ruled in favor of Desert Water and the California Department of Water Resources (the Department), denying Mission Springs' petition for a writ of mandamus. Mission Springs appealed the decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Desert Water did not violate any provisions of the Water Code by becoming a GSA. It also found that Desert Water did not form a new public corporation or public agency within Mission Springs’ jurisdiction by becoming a GSA, and therefore did not violate section 30065 of the Water Code. The court further held that the Department did not err in posting Desert Water’s notice of intent to become a GSA, as Desert Water had complied with all notice requirements. Finally, the court found that the Department was not responsible for resolving the overlapping claims to the three-square-mile area, as the Act requires the agencies to resolve this dispute themselves. View "Mission Springs Water Dist. v. Desert Water Agency" on Justia Law

The case involves Manuel Dejesus Flores, who was convicted of four counts of lewd and lascivious acts committed against two victims under 14 years old. The victims, sisters B.C. and Y.G., lived with Flores in their family apartment between 2006 and 2008. Both victims testified that Flores had touched them inappropriately multiple times. B.C. disclosed the abuse to her friends in 2016, which was reported to Child Protective Services. The trial court admitted B.C.'s disclosure statements under the "fresh complaint" doctrine, despite the significant delay in reporting the abuse.The trial court also admitted expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), which explains common behaviors and reactions of child victims of sexual abuse. Flores was sentenced to a total of 50 years to life in prison and denied any conduct credits. Flores appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting B.C.'s disclosure statements and the CSAAS expert testimony.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, affirmed the trial court's decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. The court found no error in the trial court's admission of victim disclosure evidence and CSAAS expert testimony. However, it agreed with Flores that he was entitled to presentence conduct credits, and remanded the matter for the trial court to calculate and award these credits. View "People v. Flores" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the defendant, Adam Daniel Barooshian, who was convicted of murder under a Watson murder theory in his second trial. The Watson murder theory refers to a situation where a person who kills another while driving under the influence of alcohol may be charged with second-degree murder if the circumstances support a finding of implied malice. In Barooshian’s first trial, the jury did not reach a verdict on a murder charge but convicted him of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated among other offenses.Barooshian argued that his second trial violated double jeopardy principles because gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated should be considered a necessarily included (or lesser included) offense of a Watson murder. However, the court noted that under California law, a lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense if either the statutory elements of the greater offense or the facts actually alleged in the accusatory pleading include all the elements of the lesser offense.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. The court held that gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is not a lesser included offense of murder. The court also rejected Barooshian's argument that his second trial violated double jeopardy principles. The court concluded that Barooshian had not persuaded them to create a new test to apply to his second trial. View "People v. Barooshian" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the City of Santa Cruz (City) and the County of Santa Cruz (County) over the interpretation of the City's claim presentation ordinance. The County sued the City for damages exceeding $1.2 million, alleging that the City's failure to maintain and manage a certain area led to emergency repairs. The County argued that it was not required to present a claim to the City before filing the lawsuit, as per the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.). The City, however, demurred, arguing that the County failed to present a claim directly to the City as required by the City’s claim presentation ordinance (Santa Cruz Mun. Code, § 1.14.010).The trial court sustained in part and overruled in part the City’s demurrer, rejecting the City's argument that the County was required to present a claim before filing the lawsuit. The court reasoned that the City’s ordinance applies to claims that are “not governed by” section 905 (Santa Cruz Mun. Code, § 1.14.010), and the County’s claim against the City is governed by section 905, which provides an exception to the claims presentation requirement for the County’s claim against the City.The City appealed, arguing that its ordinance, which applies to claims “not governed by” section 905, must be interpreted as applying to claims “excepted” from section 905. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District agreed with the City's interpretation. The court concluded that the trial court erred in determining that the County was not required to comply with the claim presentation ordinance before filing its lawsuit against the City. The court directed the trial court to vacate its demurrer order, to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer, and to decide in the first instance whether the County should be granted leave to amend. View "City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Apex Solutions, Inc., a cannabis business, filed a lawsuit against Falls Lake Insurance Management Company, Inc., after the insurance company refused to pay the full amount of a claim Apex filed following a burglary at its facility. The burglars stole a large portion of Apex's cannabis inventory from two separate vaults. Apex claimed that the thefts constituted two separate occurrences, each subject to a $600,000 per occurrence limit under its insurance policy. Falls Lake, however, contended that the thefts constituted a single occurrence, subject to a single $600,000 limit.The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, granted summary judgment in favor of Falls Lake, ruling that a single per occurrence limit applied. The court also rejected Apex's claim for additional payments under its business interruption coverage.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the lower court's ruling on the per occurrence limit, agreeing that the thefts constituted a single occurrence. However, the appellate court found that Apex had raised a triable issue of fact regarding the calculation of its lost business income. The court therefore reversed the judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings on that issue. View "Apex Solutions v. Falls Lake Insurance Management Co., Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Taylor C., who was declared a ward of the court at the age of 14. After his wardship ended, Taylor successfully moved to dismiss his wardship petitions under the Welfare and Institutions Code section 782. He then sought to seal his juvenile court records. However, the juvenile court denied his request, citing his prior adjudications for committing forcible lewd conduct, which made his records ineligible for sealing under section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(F). Taylor appealed, arguing that the dismissal of his wardship petitions erased the adjudication of his offenses as if they never existed.The lower court had granted Taylor's motion to dismiss his wardship petitions, finding that the interests of justice and Taylor's welfare warranted dismissal and that he was no longer in need of rehabilitation. However, it denied his motion to seal his juvenile court records, citing the prohibition in subdivision (a)(1)(F) of section 781 on sealing records relating to his forcible lewd conduct offenses.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the dismissal of a juvenile petition under section 782 does not obviate the prohibition on sealing records under section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(F) in cases involving certain delineated offenses. The court found that Taylor's records were ineligible for sealing because section 782, subdivision (e) provides that dismissal of a petition does not alone constitute a sealing of records and section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(F), precludes sealing due to the forcible lewd conduct offenses. View "In re Taylor C." on Justia Law

The case involves the appeal of the state against a defendant, Shawn Vincent Gray, who had been committed to the Department of Mental Health after being found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) for one count of stalking and two counts of making criminal threats. Gray had also admitted a prior strike allegation and six one-year prior prison commitment allegations. The trial court had determined Gray's maximum term of commitment to be 19 years four months, which could be extended if his sanity was not restored. No appeal was filed at the time, and the judgment became final.In 2019, Senate Bill No. 136 (SB 136) amended the Penal Code and limited one-year prior prison term sentencing enhancements to sexually violent offenses. All other one-year sentencing enhancements from prior prison commitments were declared legally invalid. In 2021, Senate Bill No. 483 (SB 483) made SB 136’s changes to the Penal Code partially retroactive to include previously final criminal judgments.In 2023, Gray's counsel filed a petition to recall the maximum commitment time and strike the legally invalid enhancements. The court granted the petition, recalled the judgment, and reset the maximum term of commitment to 13 years four months. This decision was appealed by the state.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District found that the Superior Court of Kern County did not have jurisdiction to consider Gray's petition in the first instance and therefore its subsequent orders were void. The court noted that SB 483 and section 1172.75 of the Penal Code did not apply to NGI judgments or to their underlying maximum terms of commitment. The Court of Appeal thus reversed and vacated the Superior Court's orders and directed the court to deny Gray's petition in its entirety. View "People v. Gray" on Justia Law

The case involves Eric Bean Knudsen, who had his driver's license suspended following an administrative per se (APS) hearing. The hearing officer from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) concluded that Knudsen had driven his car with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or greater. Knudsen challenged this decision through a writ of mandate in the Kern County Superior Court, which was denied, and the suspension was upheld.Knudsen appealed the decision, arguing that his state and federal due process rights were violated because the hearing officer who conducted the APS hearing was not constitutionally impartial. He cited a previous case, California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. DMV, which held that a public hearing officer who acts as both an advocate and adjudicator violates a driver’s due process right to an impartial adjudicator.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District reviewed the case. The court agreed with Knudsen, concluding that the public hearing officer acted as both an adjudicator and an advocate, which violated Knudsen's due process right to an impartial adjudicator. As a result, the court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for a new APS hearing. View "Knudsen v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Gregory Terence Brown, who was charged with aggravated mayhem and assault with a deadly weapon. Initially declared incompetent due to a diagnosed mental disorder, Brown was later considered competent for trial. He requested pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, which was denied. Brown was subsequently convicted and sentenced.Brown appealed, arguing that the denial of his motion for mental health diversion was incorrect, and that amendments to section 1001.36 (effective after his conviction but before sentencing) should be applied retroactively, warranting reconsideration of his motion. The People argued that Brown waived his right to invoke the retroactivity of the amendments by failing to request reconsideration prior to sentencing.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One, found that the trial court did not err in denying Brown's motion in 2022, but concluded that the amendments to section 1001.36 were retroactive. The court also determined that under the circumstances, Brown did not forfeit his right to invoke the retroactivity of the amendments by failing to request reconsideration. Accordingly, the court of appeal conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for further consideration under the amended statute. View "People v. Brown" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by SaniSure, Inc., against a trial court's decision not to compel arbitration in a dispute with its former employee, Jasmin Vazquez. Vazquez initially worked for SaniSure from July 2019, and as part of her employment, she signed an agreement to resort to arbitration for any disputes that might arise from her employment. She eventually terminated this employment in May 2021. She returned to work for SaniSure four months later without signing any new arbitration agreement or discussing the application of the previous arbitration agreement to her new employment.Vazquez's second employment with SaniSure ended in July 2022. Later, she filed a class-action complaint alleging that SaniSure had failed to provide accurate wage statements during her second tenure. She also signaled her intent to add a derivative action under the Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA). SaniSure responded by submitting a “cure letter” claiming that its wage statements now comply with the Labor Code and requested that Vazquez submit her claims to binding arbitration, which Vazquez disputed.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six affirmed the trial court's denial of SaniSure’s motion to compel arbitration. The court found that SaniSure failed to show that Vazquez agreed to arbitrate claims arising from her second stint of employment. The court further concluded that there was no evidence of an implied agreement to arbitrate claims arising from the second employment period, as the agreement covering Vazquez’s first employment period terminated in May 2021. View "Vazquez v. SaniSure" on Justia Law