Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A teacher employed by the Los Angeles Unified School District purchased a variable annuity from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in 2010, selecting an optional rider that guaranteed a minimum income benefit for an annual fee. At the time of purchase, the fee for this rider was disclosed both directly to her and on a state-maintained website, as required by California Education Code provisions governing vendors of certain retirement investment products to public education employees. In 2018, Met Life stopped offering the optional rider to new customers but continued to charge the annual fee to those, like the plaintiff, who had previously selected it. After January 2019, information about the rider fee was no longer displayed on the state website. The plaintiff continued making investments subject to the rider and paying the associated fee.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the plaintiff’s claim under the unfair competition law (UCL), which alleged Met Life unlawfully charged the fee without required public disclosure, regardless of whether the plaintiff had relied on the website or was misled. The court sustained Met Life’s demurrer and dismissed the case with prejudice, reasoning that the plaintiff failed to allege reliance on the lack of disclosure.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the judgment but for a different reason. The appellate court held that the Education Code does not require vendors to continue disclosing fees for optional product features that are no longer offered to new customers, even if existing customers still pay those fees. Therefore, Met Life was not prohibited from charging the fee after discontinuing the rider for new enrollees, and the plaintiff’s UCL claim was properly dismissed. View "Jacobson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A disabled individual, who uses a wheelchair, visited a toy store owned by a business entity in Los Angeles. He claimed that the sales counter was too high for him to use comfortably, allegedly deterring him from making a purchase. The individual subsequently filed lawsuits under both federal and state law, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The federal court dismissed the ADA claim as moot after the store remedied the alleged violation, and the state court tried the Unruh Act claim. During trial, the plaintiff testified about his intent to shop and the difficulties encountered, but the store presented evidence that no such customer was seen and that employees would have greeted him.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County presided over the state Unruh Act action. The judge found the plaintiff's testimony not credible, determining that he entered the store solely to look for ADA violations rather than to shop, and did not suffer any difficulty or denial of access. Judgment was entered for the store, and the plaintiff did not appeal. The store then filed a malicious prosecution action against the plaintiff and his attorneys, alleging they pursued claims knowing essential facts refuted their allegations. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had probable cause and acted without malice. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, declining to apply issue preclusion to the prior judge’s factual findings.Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three, held that the prior judge’s findings regarding the plaintiff’s intentions and actions were entitled to preclusive effect and sufficient to raise triable issues of fact about probable cause and malice as to the plaintiff. However, the appellate court found no similar evidence against the attorneys, as they relied on information provided by the plaintiff. The judgment was reversed as to the plaintiff and affirmed as to the attorneys. View "Landis' Labyrinth v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

Several tenants of a subdivided property in Los Angeles, each with separate oral lease agreements for individual units, were forced out of their homes after the landlord obtained a default unlawful detainer judgment against the tenant of a different unit. The landlord did not inform these tenants of the proceedings or provide proper notice. Although only the tenant of unit seven was behind on rent, the landlord sought and obtained possession of the entire property. The sheriff’s deputies, acting on the writ of possession, evicted all the tenants, leaving them homeless and unable to retrieve most of their belongings.The tenants filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, asserting claims such as wrongful eviction, breach of quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and violations of statutory and local ordinances. The landlord responded by filing a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the tenants’ claims arose from protected petitioning activity—the prosecution of the unlawful detainer action. The Superior Court granted the motion for ten of the eleven causes of action, concluding that the tenants’ claims were premised on the landlord’s protected activity in pursuing the unlawful detainer case.Upon review, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, held that the tenants’ claims did not arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court found that the gravamen of the tenants’ complaint was the landlord’s improper termination of their tenancies without judicial process or notice—not the act of filing or prosecuting the unlawful detainer action against another tenant. Therefore, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting the anti-SLAPP motion and directed the lower court to deny the motion. View "Noon v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was an employee who brought claims for wrongful termination, Labor Code violations, and breach of contract against two defendants: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Public Transportation Services Corporation (PTSC). MTA had created PTSC, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, to provide retirement and employment benefits to certain workers and to manage employees who support MTA’s transportation functions. The plaintiff did not file a prelitigation claim under the Government Claims Act (GCA) before suing these entities.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County first granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of both defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged compliance with the GCA’s claim presentation requirements. The plaintiff was given leave to amend but continued to argue that PTSC was not a public entity subject to the GCA, and that even if it was, the claims presentation requirement should not apply because PTSC had not registered as required by statute. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding both defendants to be public entities and that PTSC was not required to register separately from MTA. The court entered judgment for both defendants.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, the plaintiff did not challenge the judgment in favor of MTA but contested the ruling as to PTSC. The appellate court held that PTSC qualifies as a public entity for purposes of the GCA’s claims presentation requirement, given its creation and control by MTA. However, the court found that if PTSC failed to register properly on the Registry of Public Agencies—including with county clerks where it maintains offices—this would excuse the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the GCA. The judgment for MTA was affirmed, but the judgment for PTSC was reversed and remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint. View "Black v. L.A. County Metropolitan Transp. Authority" on Justia Law

A homeowners association in San Diego, governed by the Davis-Stirling Act and its own bylaws, held a recall election to remove a board director. The association distributed recall ballot materials, including a candidate statement from the sole candidate seeking to replace the director if the recall succeeded. The sitting director sought to include her own statement in these materials to advocate against her removal but was denied by the elections inspector, who reasoned that only candidate statements were included. The association’s election rules defined “association media” to exclude candidate forms or statements attached to ballots.Previously, the Superior Court of San Diego County, in a separate action brought by the same director, found no violation of the statutory equal-access requirement for association media, concluding that all candidates had equal opportunity to submit statements using the association’s forms for regular board elections. Following the recall, the director filed a new petition and complaint challenging the association’s refusal to distribute her statement, alleging violations of Civil Code section 5105, various Corporations Code provisions, and negligence. After a bench trial, the Superior Court again ruled for the association and the inspector, finding the candidate statement was not “association media” under the relevant statute and that the recall vote met statutory requirements.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed. It held that “association media” as used in Civil Code section 5105 does encompass ballot materials containing candidate statements distributed by the association during an election. The court concluded the director was entitled to equal access to these materials to advocate her position. The court remanded for further proceedings to determine, under Civil Code section 5145, whether the association’s failure to provide equal access affected the election outcome. The judgment was reversed and remanded with directions. View "Arroyo v. Pacific Ridge Neighborhood Homeowners Assn." on Justia Law

Anthony Seigler and his girlfriend, Katrina Fowles, were involved in two incidents in Lake County in early 2023. In the first, they called 911 reporting armed threats to their son and shots fired into their home; responders found Seigler had fired two shots through a bathroom wall while his son was present, but there was no evidence of an actual attack. Both appeared under the influence of drugs. In the second incident, Fowles’s mother reported a burglary at her home by Seigler and Fowles, and Seigler was found with stolen property. Seigler was charged in two separate cases: one for negligent discharge of a firearm, and another for burglary.The Lake County Superior Court repeatedly continued trial dates over several months for reasons including the need for witness availability, discovery issues, and defense counsel’s request for a mental health evaluation of Seigler due to concerns about his mental state and substance abuse. Despite counsel’s continued difficulty communicating with Seigler and attempts to secure a mental health evaluation, such evaluation was never performed. On the day of trial, defense counsel moved for a continuance and filed an application for mental health diversion. The trial court denied both, finding them untimely and inadequately noticed, and proceeded toward trial. Seigler then entered no contest pleas to both charges and was placed on probation.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the continuance, particularly given indications that Seigler’s mental health and substance abuse were significant factors and the statutory right to seek diversion before trial or plea. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded, directing that Seigler be given a reasonable opportunity to apply for mental health diversion and, if granted and completed, for dismissal of charges; if not, the judgment would be reinstated. View "People v. Seigler" on Justia Law

Two young children, ages four and two, were severely injured after falling from a second-floor bedroom window in an apartment building in Lodi, California, where they lived with their mother. The accident occurred shortly after the property owner replaced the apartment’s windows during a renovation that did not include installing fall prevention devices on the upper-floor windows. The children’s guardian ad litem sued the property owner and its manager, alleging negligence based on both general negligence and negligence per se, claiming that the absence of fall prevention devices violated the California Building Standards Code and proximately caused the injuries.The case was heard in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Prior to trial, the defendants sought to defeat the negligence per se claim, arguing the building was exempt from current code requirements because it complied with the code at the time of its original construction in 1980. The trial court denied their motion, allowing both negligence theories to proceed to trial. After plaintiffs presented their case, the court granted a nonsuit for the entire complaint, ruling there was no duty owed under general negligence given lack of foreseeability, and that the window replacement qualified for a code exemption, negating negligence per se.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the matter de novo. The appellate court affirmed the nonsuit on the general negligence claim, finding the harm was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty. However, it reversed the nonsuit as to negligence per se, holding that replacing the window did not qualify for the “original materials” exemption in the Building Code, and thus the defendants were required to comply with current safety standards. The case was remanded for retrial on the negligence per se claim. View "Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes" on Justia Law

A California nonprofit organization focused on preventing deceptive environmental claims filed a lawsuit against a manufacturer of feminine hygiene products. The organization alleged that the manufacturer labeled and advertised certain products, including period underwear, pads, and panty liners, as “organic” or “made with organic cotton” in violation of the California Organic Food and Farming Act (COFFA). The complaint stated that these products contained less than the minimum required percentage of certified organic materials and included nonagricultural and nonorganically produced components not permitted under state or federal organic standards.The case was first heard in the Alameda County Superior Court. The manufacturer moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that COFFA applies only to agricultural products, cosmetics, and pet food—not to personal care products such as feminine hygiene items. The Superior Court agreed with the manufacturer and granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding that COFFA did not govern the products in question. The nonprofit timely appealed that decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that COFFA applies broadly to all products sold as “organic” or containing “organic” materials in California, unless specifically exempted, and that the statute’s plain language encompasses feminine hygiene products. The court found no basis for an implied exception for personal care products and determined that the trial court erred in its interpretation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, clarifying that COFFA’s standards and labeling requirements apply to the manufacturer’s products at issue. View "Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael" on Justia Law

A city in California owned a downtown parking garage known as Garage 5, which was in poor condition and underutilized according to studies conducted in 2019 and 2022. The city had previously adopted a housing plan to identify public land suitable for housing development. In public meetings and study sessions throughout 2021 and 2022, city staff and consultants presented data showing declining demand for public parking and the high cost of necessary repairs to Garage 5. After further study and public comment, the city’s council passed a resolution in December 2022 declaring Garage 5 to be surplus land under the Surplus Land Act, provided that any future development retain at least 75 public parking spaces.The owner of nearby properties, Airport Business Center, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in Sonoma County Superior Court. The petitioner argued the city had violated the Surplus Land Act by declaring the garage surplus while there was still an ongoing need for public parking and contended that the city’s findings were not supported by the evidence. The Superior Court denied the petition, finding the city’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious, and that there was substantial evidentiary support for the resolution. A temporary stay was granted pending appeal, but the Court of Appeal denied a request for further stay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that the Surplus Land Act’s requirement that property be “not necessary for the agency’s use” allows a city to designate property as surplus if it is not indispensable for agency operations, even if the property serves a public purpose like parking. The evidence supported the city’s determination, and the findings in the resolution satisfied statutory requirements. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, awarding costs to the city. View "Airport Business Center v. City of Santa Rosa" on Justia Law

The case concerns challenges to groundwater replenishment charges imposed by a water district in a desert region where groundwater is the main source of potable water. The water district operates three areas of benefit (AOBs) and levies replenishment charges on customers who pump significant groundwater. Domestic customers do not pay these charges directly, but their payments for drinking water are allocated to the replenishment funds through the district’s enterprise fund system. Plaintiffs, including a taxpayer association, alleged that the replenishment charges were unconstitutionally structured, resulting in higher rates for certain AOBs and unfair subsidies for others, benefitting large agricultural businesses.The litigation began with a combined petition and class action in the Superior Court of Riverside County, which was dismissed because the court found the validation statutes applied and the statute of limitations had expired. Subsequent reverse validation actions for later fiscal years were timely filed and consolidated. The Superior Court, in rulings by two judges, found the replenishment charges to be unconstitutional taxes because they did not satisfy the requirements of California Constitution Article XIII C, Section 1, subdivision (e)(2). Specifically, the court found that the district failed to show the allocation of replenishment costs bore a fair or reasonable relationship to the burdens or benefits received by each AOB, and thus the charges were not exempt from being classified as taxes. The court awarded substantial refunds to affected ratepayers and enjoined the district from imposing similar unconstitutional charges in the future.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed both the district’s appeal of the remedies and liability findings and the taxpayer association’s cross-appeal on procedural grounds. The appellate court affirmed in full, holding that the replenishment charges were unconstitutional, the remedies were proper, and that the validation statutes applied to these charges, thus barring untimely claims for earlier years. The appellate court also found no error in the trial court’s grant of refund and injunctive relief. View "Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Coachella Valley Water Dist." on Justia Law