Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, who worked as a truck driver for the defendants for approximately nine months in 2018, brought claims alleging that the defendants failed to provide required meal and rest breaks, failed to reimburse necessary work-related expenses, and violated California’s unfair competition law. The plaintiff also filed a representative claim for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), all arising from his employment as a driver.The Superior Court of Sutter County denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification on the meal break, rest break, expense reimbursement, and unfair competition claims. In particular, the court found that the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence of a common policy of discouraging breaks or of a community of interest among the proposed class members. The court relied on declarations from other drivers indicating they were not discouraged from taking breaks and noting variability in their experiences. The court also granted the defendants’ motion to strike the PAGA claim on manageability grounds, reasoning that adjudicating the claim would require individual testimony from 75 drivers and would be unmanageable.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed the denial of class certification for the rest break and expense reimbursement claims, finding insufficient evidence of commonality. However, it reversed the denial of class certification for the meal break and derivative unfair competition claims, holding that the trial court failed to apply the burden-shifting framework required by Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC when time records show missed or unrecorded meal breaks. Additionally, the appellate court reversed the order striking the PAGA claim, holding that trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims solely based on manageability concerns, as clarified in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of whether the PAGA claim is preempted by federal law. View "Dieves v. Butte Sand Trucking Co." on Justia Law

In 1995, a military veteran was convicted of assaulting and causing the death of his four-month-old daughter, resulting in a 15-years-to-life sentence for a violation of California Penal Code section 273ab. This was his first and only felony conviction, although he had a prior record of mostly DUI offenses. Nearly three decades later, in 2024, he petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.91, arguing that military service-related conditions—specifically traumatic brain injury and substance abuse—were not considered as mitigating factors at his original sentencing.The Superior Court of Solano County initially denied his habeas corpus petition, noting that relief was available through section 1170.91 and instructing him to file a separate resentencing petition. When he subsequently filed a formal resentencing petition under section 1170.91, the trial court summarily denied it without a hearing, stating he had failed to make a prima facie case for relief. The defendant appealed, asserting he was entitled to a public hearing on his petition and that his military-related conditions should have been considered.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that, even assuming the petition was sufficient to require a public hearing, any procedural error was harmless because the defendant was statutorily ineligible for resentencing. The court concluded that under section 1170.91, subdivision (c), individuals convicted of offenses listed as “super strikes” under section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv)—which includes the defendant’s conviction—are categorically excluded from resentencing relief. The court affirmed the denial of the petition, holding that the statutory exclusion applies regardless of whether the conviction was a first offense or resulted from the Three Strikes law. View "P. v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The defendant was residing at a hotel managed by the Department of Mental Health when the hotel’s general manager entered his room to deliver a meal. After discovering the entry, the defendant accused the manager of theft. This confrontation escalated when the defendant returned to the manager’s office and threatened him with a knife. As a result, charges were filed for assault with a deadly weapon and making criminal threats, with allegations of prior serious or violent felony convictions and aggravating sentencing factors.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss one of his previous strike convictions but later granted the prosecution’s request to dismiss one strike as inapplicable. The court bifurcated the trial on the prior conviction and aggravating factors. After the prosecution rested its case, the defendant stipulated to having a prior strike conviction and to the existence of aggravating factors, without being advised of his right to a jury trial on these issues or the penal consequences of his admission. The jury convicted the defendant of making criminal threats but could not reach a verdict on the assault charge. The court sentenced the defendant to the upper term, doubled under the three strikes law, based on his stipulation.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred by failing to advise the defendant of his constitutional rights—including the right to a jury trial—before accepting his stipulation to the prior conviction and aggravating factors. The appellate court found these errors prejudicial under the totality of the circumstances. While the conviction was affirmed, the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. The People were allowed the option to retry the prior conviction and aggravating circumstances. View "P. v. Kinnear" on Justia Law

A former hourly employee brought a class action lawsuit against his former employer, a large wood products company, alleging various wage and hour violations under California law. The proposed classes included both employees who had signed arbitration agreements and those who had not. While some nonexempt employees had signed arbitration agreements requiring individual arbitration and waiving class actions, the named plaintiffs had not. The employer did not initially assert arbitration as a defense and, when ordered by the court to produce copies of signed arbitration agreements for putative class members, failed to do so for several years.During the course of discovery in the Superior Court of Shasta County, the employer repeatedly resisted requests to identify or produce arbitration agreements for employees who had signed them, leading to multiple discovery sanctions. The employer participated in extensive discovery and mediation involving employees who had signed arbitration agreements, without distinguishing them from other putative class members. Only after class certification did the employer finally produce thousands of signed arbitration agreements and immediately moved to compel arbitration for those employees. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the employer had waived its right to arbitrate by years of litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, and sought evidentiary and issue sanctions for delayed production.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. Applying the California Supreme Court’s standard from Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., the appellate court held that the employer waived its right to compel arbitration by clear and convincing evidence. The employer’s prolonged failure to produce arbitration agreements and its conduct throughout litigation was inconsistent with an intention to enforce arbitration. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed, and the appeal from the order granting evidentiary and issue sanctions was dismissed as nonappealable. View "Sierra Pacific Industries Wage and Hour Cases" on Justia Law

An 18-year-old named Elijah Henry was driving with friends in Pleasanton, California, when a police officer, Officer Harvey, entered a parking lot to check for vehicle break-ins. Seeing the officer, Henry and his friends got into their car and left. Officer Harvey, suspecting a burglary, began to follow Henry’s car without activating lights or siren, intending to perform a traffic stop but not initiating a formal pursuit as defined by Pleasanton’s police policy. Henry, fearful of police attention, accelerated and ran a red light, colliding with Melanie Gilliland’s car and causing her serious injuries. Henry was later convicted of felony DUI, but no evidence connected him or his friends to the suspected burglary.Gilliland sued both Henry and the City of Pleasanton for negligence. In Alameda County Superior Court, the City moved for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from liability under California Vehicle Code section 17004.7, which protects public entities from damages caused by suspects fleeing police if the entity has a compliant vehicular pursuit policy and provides regular training. The first judge denied summary judgment, finding neither an actual nor perceived pursuit occurred under the City’s policy. At a later bench trial before a different judge, the court found the City immune, reasoning Henry believed he was being “pursued” in the ordinary sense, even though no formal pursuit was initiated.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and held the trial court applied the wrong legal standard for immunity under section 17004.7. The appellate court determined that “pursued” must be defined according to the public entity’s vehicular pursuit policy, not by its ordinary meaning. Because the lower court failed to consider evidence that Henry did not believe he was pursued within the meaning of the policy, the judgment in favor of the City was reversed and remanded for application of the correct standard. View "Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was charged in October 2022 with possession of child pornography, including an enhancement for possessing a large number of images involving very young minors. In February 2023, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation, jail time under work release, and required to register as a sex offender. The defendant is a registered nurse, and after his conviction, the state Board of Registered Nursing began disciplinary proceedings to remove his license. He lost his job but later received support from his former employer and sought therapy and treatment.In September 2023, the defendant petitioned the Superior Court of Riverside County under Penal Code section 236.15 to vacate his conviction. He argued that his offense was a direct result of sexual violence he suffered as both a child and an adult, including repeated abuse and rapes. The petition was supported by a clinical director who opined that the defendant’s behavior was a “direct result” of trauma repetition linked to his history of sexual violence. After an evidentiary hearing in January 2024, the Superior Court granted the petition and vacated the conviction, leading to the dismissal of disciplinary proceedings against him.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court clarified the requirements for relief under section 236.15 and held that the abuse of discretion standard applies to appellate review. It found that, although the defendant suffered significant sexual violence, his later possession of child pornography was not a “direct result” of that victimization as required by the statute. The court emphasized that multiple contributing factors and the passage of time attenuated the causal connection. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order granting the petition and directed the lower court to deny the petition. View "P. v. S.H." on Justia Law

A woman filed for dissolution of her marriage after six months, seeking a permanent domestic violence restraining order against her husband. The parties share a young daughter, S.R., and the wife has two other daughters, K.R. and D.R., from a prior relationship. The wife alleged that K.R., age 13, had disclosed incidents of sexual abuse by the husband. K.R. described being touched inappropriately by the husband on two occasions, one occurring recently and one two years prior. These allegations were relayed to law enforcement and a school counselor, and the wife filed a declaration detailing K.R.’s statements as part of her restraining order request.The Superior Court of Orange County held an evidentiary hearing in which the wife testified about K.R.’s statements. The trial court admitted these statements over the husband’s hearsay objections, found the wife credible, and granted a restraining order protecting the wife, K.R., D.R., and S.R. The order included sole legal and physical custody of S.R. to the wife, with the husband permitted professional monitored visitation with S.R. once a month, citing concerns that the monitor could not understand Spanish, S.R.’s primary language. The trial court also took judicial notice of pending criminal charges against the husband, and subsequently entered judgment dissolving the marriage.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that K.R.’s out-of-court statements were admissible for their truth under the child dependency hearsay exception recognized in In re Cindy L., and clarified that this exception applies in domestic violence restraining order proceedings involving sexual abuse of a minor. The court found error in the trial court’s reliance on pending criminal charges as substantive evidence, but determined the error was not prejudicial. The appellate court reversed the part of the restraining order limiting visitation with S.R., concluding the trial court misapplied the law regarding professional monitors’ language requirements, and remanded for reconsideration of visitation. The restraining order was otherwise affirmed. View "Marriage of M.P. and M.C." on Justia Law

Two neighbors in a residential community disagreed about a tree branch that obstructed one neighbor’s view. Jinshu Zhang, the owner seeking the view, used his homeowners association’s dispute resolution process, which included mediation and arbitration services provided by Charles Peterson, an independent mediator. When the association dismissed Zhang’s application, Zhang sued Peterson for breach of fiduciary duty, claiming Peterson was a director or officer of the association and thus owed him such a duty. However, Peterson was neither a director nor an officer, but an independent contractor. Zhang lost his lawsuit against Peterson following a nonsuit at trial, and did not appeal.After that case concluded, Peterson filed a malicious prosecution action against Zhang, alleging Zhang’s earlier suit was baseless and continued without probable cause once Zhang had evidence Peterson was not an officer or director. In response, Zhang filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), seeking to dismiss Peterson’s malicious prosecution claim. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Zhang’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding Peterson’s case had at least minimal merit based on evidence showing Zhang lacked probable cause and may have acted with malice in pursuing the prior suit.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed Zhang’s appeal. The court affirmed the denial of Zhang’s anti-SLAPP motion, holding that the denial of a discretionary sanctions motion in the underlying suit did not establish probable cause under the “interim adverse judgment rule,” and did not bar the malicious prosecution claim. The court concluded that Peterson’s evidence on lack of probable cause and malice was sufficient to allow his case to proceed, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Peterson v. Zhang" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, along with two codefendants, was involved in a series of crimes in 1983 that included kidnapping, robbery, sexual assault, and murder. The three men armed themselves and kidnapped two victims from a park, holding one victim in the trunk and sexually assaulting the other. Both victims were eventually shot in the head—one survived, the other was killed. The defendant admitted to participating in the crimes, including the use of a firearm, and pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, oral copulation in concert, and rape in concert as part of a plea agreement. In exchange, special circumstance allegations were dropped, and other counts were dismissed.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County originally sentenced the defendant to 27 years to life. Decades later, following the enactment of Senate Bill No. 1437, which limited felony-murder liability, the defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing he was not a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The Superior Court denied his petition, finding him ineligible for relief because he was a major participant and acted with reckless indifference. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, as required by recent case law.After an evidentiary hearing, which included testimony from a retired detective and the defendant’s own statements at a parole hearing, the Superior Court again denied the resentencing petition. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the record under the substantial evidence standard and affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling. The appellate court held that substantial evidence supported the finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was a major participant in the underlying felonies and acted with reckless indifference to human life, making him ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. The order denying resentencing was affirmed. View "People v. Grandberry" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances, two counts of burglary, and one count of robbery, stemming from a 1986 home invasion burglary in which two victims were killed. The jury imposed the death penalty for each murder, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to death as well as a consecutive determinate term of seven years, which included a one-year enhancement for a prior prison term. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in 1995, and subsequent federal habeas corpus petitions were denied.Years later, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified the defendant as potentially eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, because the one-year enhancement for a prior prison term was no longer valid under current law. The defendant requested a full resentencing, including the possibility of striking the special circumstance findings and modifying the death sentence. The People objected, arguing that section 1172.75 did not authorize resentencing of a death sentence, which could only be challenged by a writ of habeas corpus under section 1509. Despite the objection, the Ventura County Superior Court recalled the entire sentence, including the death penalty.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the matter. The court held that while Penal Code section 1172.75 authorized recall and resentencing for invalid prior prison term enhancements, it did not empower a trial court to recall or resentence a final, affirmed death sentence. The court found that such action would amount to a collateral attack on the judgment of death, which section 1509—enacted by voter initiative—explicitly reserves for habeas corpus proceedings. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order recalling the death sentence, affirmed the order as to the noncapital portions, and remanded for resentencing on those noncapital portions only. View "People v. Cain" on Justia Law