Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2009, John Roe DZ 20, John Roe DZ 21, and John Roe DZ 22 (Plaintiffs) sued an employee of Doe 3, Family Services Organization (Family Services), alleging childhood sexual assault. The trial court dismissed the claims against the employee with prejudice due to the statute of limitations. In 2022, Plaintiffs filed a new complaint against Family Services based on the same allegations, relying on the revival provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1.Family Services demurred to the complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims could not be revived under section 340.1, subdivision (q), because they were derivative of the claims litigated to finality in the 2009 action. The trial court overruled the demurrer. Family Services then petitioned for a writ of mandate to direct the trial court to vacate its order and sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that a claim for derivative liability against a principal is considered “litigated to finality” under section 340.1, subdivision (q), if a previous suit against the agent for the same damages based on the same operative facts was dismissed with prejudice. Consequently, the court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to sustain the demurrer but allowed Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to potentially allege new facts that could support a cause of action against Family Services. View "Doe 3 v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

L.H. pled no contest to first-degree murder and was committed to a secure youth treatment facility by the juvenile court. The court set his maximum term of confinement to 25 years to life or until he turns 25, whichever comes first, and applied 734 days of precommitment credits to this term. L.H. appealed, arguing that the court incorrectly applied Welfare and Institutions Code section 875 in setting his maximum term of confinement beyond his 25th birthday and erred in applying his precommitment credits against a theoretical maximum term of 25 years. He also claimed that equal protection principles require his precommitment credits to be applied against a term that does not exceed his 25th birthday.The juvenile court adjudged L.H. a ward of the court and committed him to Briones Youth Academy, Secure Pathway. The court determined that L.H.'s remaining custody time was 22 years and 361 days after applying the precommitment credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the juvenile court correctly applied section 875 in setting the maximum term of confinement. The court interpreted section 875, subdivision (c)(1)(A) as providing a separate cap on the length of a ward’s physical confinement, independent of the maximum term of confinement set by the juvenile court. The court also held that the juvenile court did not err in applying L.H.'s precommitment credits against the maximum term of confinement of 25 years, as required by section 875, subdivision (c)(1)(C). The court found no equal protection violation, as the application of precommitment credits was consistent with the statutory requirements.The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s disposition order. View "In re L.H." on Justia Law

Ramiro Munoz, a member of a criminal street gang, was convicted in 2008 of first-degree murder and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle, with firearm and gang allegations found true. Munoz, who was 15 years old at the time of the crime, was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. In 2023, Munoz filed a petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole, making him eligible for relief under the statute.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Munoz's petition, stating that he would be eligible for parole under section 3051 in 2029, when he would be 39 years old. Munoz appealed the decision, and the case was reviewed by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven.The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court's decision, holding that Munoz's sentence of 50 years to life is not the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole. The court concluded that section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), applies only to juvenile offenders explicitly sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and does not extend to those with lengthy sentences that may be considered de facto life without parole. The court also noted that Munoz would have a realistic opportunity to obtain release from prison during his expected lifetime, distinguishing his case from others with significantly longer sentences. View "People v. Munoz" on Justia Law

Billy Ford worked as a full-time security guard for Parkwest Casino Lotus from September 2018 to December 2021. Upon hiring, Ford signed an arbitration agreement that excluded claims for workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, certain administrative complaints, ERISA claims, and "representative claims under [PAGA]." In February 2022, Ford filed a complaint against Parkwest under PAGA, alleging Labor Code violations, including mandatory off-the-clock health screenings and inaccurate wage statements. Parkwest moved to compel arbitration of Ford's individual PAGA claims and to dismiss the representative PAGA claims, citing Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.The Superior Court of Sacramento County denied Parkwest's motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement specifically excluded all PAGA claims. Parkwest appealed, arguing that the agreement was ambiguous regarding the exclusion of individual PAGA claims and that such ambiguity should be resolved in favor of arbitration.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement unambiguously excluded all PAGA claims, including individual claims. The court reasoned that the language of the agreement and the circumstances under which it was executed indicated that the parties intended to exclude all PAGA claims from arbitration. The court affirmed the trial court's order denying Parkwest's motion to compel arbitration. View "Ford v. The Silver F" on Justia Law

In 1982, Jose Gelito Rodriguez and three others were involved in two separate shooting incidents on Hollywood Boulevard, resulting in the injury of Don Hill and the death of Kirk Bickford. Rodriguez was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and murder. In 1984, he pled guilty to second-degree murder, and the firearm enhancements were dismissed. The plea agreement was influenced by the lack of witnesses to identify Rodriguez as the shooter and his intoxication at the time, which could have reduced the charge to involuntary manslaughter. Rodriguez was sentenced to 15 years to life.Rodriguez later sought resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that he was not the actual shooter and that his intoxication could negate malice. The trial court appointed counsel and found a prima facie case for relief, leading to an evidentiary hearing. The People sought to admit Rodriguez’s statements from a 2011 letter to the Board of Parole Hearings and a 2016 Comprehensive Risk Assessment. Rodriguez objected, claiming the statements were coerced and unreliable hearsay.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County admitted the statements, finding them voluntary and reliable. At the evidentiary hearing, the court reviewed the evidence, including the probation report and testimony from Dr. Jill Hobel, who conducted the 2016 assessment. The court concluded that Rodriguez was the actual killer and denied his petition for resentencing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that the resentencing procedure under section 1172.6 is a postconviction process and not a criminal trial, thus not implicating the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court found no error in admitting Rodriguez’s statements from the parole proceedings, as they were not compelled or involuntary. View "People v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Francisco Munoz Virgen and two codefendants were charged with murder and assault with a semiautomatic firearm. In the first trial, the jury could not reach a verdict on the charges, leading to a mistrial. Virgen and one codefendant were retried, while the other codefendant entered a plea agreement and testified for the prosecution. The second trial included testimony suggesting an uncharged conspiracy to assault the victim, during which the victim was shot and killed. The court instructed the jury on aiding and abetting and conspiracy principles, including the final paragraph of CALCRIM No. 400 and CALCRIM No. 416, which allowed for conviction of crimes occurring during the commission of the intended crime. The jury found Virgen guilty of second-degree murder but could not reach a verdict on the assault charge or the firearm enhancement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County declared a mistrial on the assault charge and interpreted the deadlock on the firearm allegation as a not true finding. Virgen was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. On appeal, Virgen argued that the court's instructions allowed the jury to convict him of murder without finding he acted with malice and that the court should have instructed on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. The People conceded that the court miscalculated Virgen's presentence custody credits.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, agreed with Virgen's contention that the jury could have convicted him of murder without finding malice aforethought due to the instructions given. The court concluded that the instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and reversed Virgen's murder conviction, remanding the case for a retrial on that count. View "People v. Virgen" on Justia Law

Emiliano Gomez was found guilty by the trial court of multiple offenses, including stalking, criminal threats, and possession of a firearm and ammunition as a felon. The police found a flare gun in Gomez's possession, and based on an officer's testimony, the trial court convicted him of possessing a firearm as a felon under Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). Gomez appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm as a felon and that the statutes prohibiting felons from possessing firearms and ammunition violate the Second Amendment.The trial court found Gomez guilty on all counts except for possession of body armor. The court also found special allegations and aggravating factors true, sentencing Gomez to an aggregate term of four years in state prison. Gomez contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove the flare gun was a firearm designed to be used as a weapon, as required by section 16520, subdivision (a).The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that the prosecution needed to prove the flare gun was designed to be used as a weapon. The court found the evidence insufficient to support such a finding and vacated the conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. The court also rejected Gomez's Second Amendment challenge to the statutory prohibitions on possession of firearms and ammunition by felons, citing the reasoning in People v. Anderson. The judgment was reversed, the conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon was vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing. View "People v. Gomez" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, a tenured professor at a community college, filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and related claims against the Los Angeles Community College District and a vice president of student services. The alleged harassment occurred over an eight-month period in 2017, during which the vice president made inappropriate comments and advances towards the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed retaliation when she did not comply with his demands, including attempts to move her program and firing her staff.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County presided over the trial, where a jury awarded the plaintiff $10 million in noneconomic damages. The defendants filed motions for a new trial and partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict, citing prejudicial errors in the admission of evidence and excessive damages. These motions were denied by the trial judge, who made inappropriate and irrelevant comments during the post-trial hearing, leading to his disqualification for cause.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and found significant errors in the trial court's evidentiary rulings. The appellate court determined that the admission of 20-year-old newspaper articles and evidence of the vice president's misdemeanor convictions were prejudicial and irrelevant. Additionally, the testimony of a student who had filed a separate harassment complaint against a different administrator was improperly admitted, as it was not closely related to the plaintiff's circumstances and theory of the case.The appellate court concluded that these errors, combined with the excessive damages awarded, warranted a new trial. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The defendants were awarded costs on appeal. View "Odom v. L.A. Community College Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Christian L. Johnson sued his employer, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), for claims related to his employment. During the litigation, Paul Brown, an attorney for Caltrans, sent an email to Johnson’s supervisor, Nicolas Duncan, which Duncan then shared with Johnson. Johnson and his attorney, John Shepardson, further disseminated the email to several experts and individuals. Caltrans claimed the email was protected by attorney-client privilege and sought a protective order, which the trial court granted. Subsequently, Caltrans filed motions to enforce the order and to disqualify Shepardson and three experts, which the trial court also granted.The Superior Court of San Joaquin County initially ruled in favor of Caltrans, finding the email was privileged and issuing a protective order. The court later disqualified Shepardson and the experts due to their continued use and dissemination of the privileged email, despite the protective order. Johnson appealed the disqualification order, arguing the email was not privileged, Caltrans waived the privilege, and the trial court abused its discretion.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the email was indeed protected by attorney-client privilege, as it was sent by Caltrans’s attorney to a Caltrans employee for the purpose of legal defense. The court found no waiver of the privilege by Caltrans and determined that Shepardson breached his ethical obligations by using and disseminating the email. The court concluded that disqualification was appropriate to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and prevent unfair advantage. The appellate court’s decision emphasized the importance of maintaining ethical standards and the confidentiality of privileged communications. View "Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Melissa Mandell-Brown, filed a complaint against Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Zamaneh Zamanian, asserting 16 causes of action, including claims for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Labor Code, as well as common law claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by a separate statement of 161 undisputed facts, attorney declarations, and witness declarations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff failed to file an opposition or a separate statement in response to the motion. The court granted two continuances to the plaintiff, but she still did not file the required documents or appear at the continued hearing. The court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of her causes of action.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), by granting the motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite separate statement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that the trial court had the discretion to grant the motion for summary judgment due to the plaintiff's non-compliance with the procedural requirements, especially given the complexity of the case and the multiple continuances already granted. View "Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc." on Justia Law