Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Trudy Maxwell, a 93-year-old resident of Atria Park of San Mateo, died after ingesting an industrial strength cleaner mistakenly served to her by an Atria employee. Trudy’s eight surviving children, including James Maxwell III (James III), filed a lawsuit against Atria Management Company and related entities, alleging negligence, wrongful death, and elder abuse. The trial court denied Atria’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that James III, who signed the arbitration agreement, was not authorized to do so under his durable power of attorney (DPOA) because he was not authorized to make health care decisions for Trudy. Instead, Trudy’s daughter, Marybeth, held the power of attorney for health care.The Atria defendants appealed, arguing that James III had the authority to sign the arbitration agreement and that all of Trudy’s heirs were bound to arbitrate their wrongful death claims. They also contended that California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c), which allows an exception to arbitration when third-party claims may be affected, was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s order denying arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court instructed the trial court to reconsider the validity of the arbitration agreement in light of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC, which held that agreeing to an optional arbitration agreement is not a health care decision. The appellate court also directed the trial court to determine whether the DPOA was valid and whether James III had the authority to agree to arbitration despite Marybeth holding the health care POA. Additionally, the court noted that the wrongful death claims of Trudy’s children were not subject to arbitration as they were not parties to the arbitration agreement. View "Maxwell v. Atria Management Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Joseph Mayor, a petitioner, sought a writ of mandate to direct the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) to rescind its order granting Ross Valley Sanitation District’s (Ross Valley) petition for reconsideration of an award of permanent disability. Mayor had been awarded total permanent disability by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) due to an industrial injury. Ross Valley filed a petition for reconsideration, but the Board acted on it more than 60 days after it was filed, which Mayor argued exceeded the Board’s jurisdiction under former section 5909 of the Labor Code.The WCJ issued the award on March 2, 2023, and Ross Valley filed for reconsideration on March 23, 2023. The Board did not act within the 60-day period mandated by former section 5909, which stated that a petition is deemed denied if not acted upon within 60 days. On August 14, 2023, the Board granted the petition for reconsideration, citing administrative irregularities and delays in receiving the petition. Mayor then filed for a writ of mandate, arguing that the Board lost jurisdiction after the 60-day period lapsed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Mayor, referencing the recent decision in Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., which held that the Board’s action after 60 days exceeded its jurisdiction. The court noted that the Legislature had amended section 5909 to start the 60-day deadline from when the Board receives the case file, not when the petition is filed, but this amendment did not apply retroactively. The court granted Mayor’s petition, directing the Board to rescind its orders and confirming that the WCJ’s award of permanent disability was final. View "Mayor v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Sarah Anoke and other employees initiated arbitration proceedings against their employer, X (comprising Twitter, Inc., X Holdings I, Inc., X Holdings Corp., X Corp., and Elon Musk), for employment-related disputes. The arbitration provider issued an invoice for $27,200, which Anoke’s counsel mistakenly paid. The arbitration provider marked the invoice as paid and closed, then refunded the payment and issued a new invoice to X, which X paid within 30 days.Anoke petitioned the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to compel X to pay her arbitration-related attorney fees and costs, arguing that X’s payment was untimely because it was not made within 30 days of the first invoice. The superior court denied the petition, reasoning that since the first invoice was nullified after Anoke’s attorney mistakenly paid it and X timely paid the second invoice, X met the statutory deadline.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the statutory deadline for payment was tied to the due date set by the arbitration provider’s invoice. Since the first invoice was paid (albeit mistakenly) and the second invoice was paid within 30 days, there was no default. The court affirmed the superior court’s order, concluding that the arbitrator acted within its authority by issuing a second invoice and that the statute did not require the arbitrator to reinstate the first invoice after it had been paid and closed. The court also noted that the reasons for a timely payment are irrelevant under the statute. View "Anoke v. Twitter" on Justia Law

In 2006, the defendant and other gang members robbed two men at gunpoint in a Denny’s restroom. During the robbery, a friend of the victims, Armand Jones, entered and resisted, leading to a chase outside. Shots were fired, resulting in Jones' death and another person being wounded. The defendant was charged with murder, attempted murder, robbery, and other related offenses. The prosecutor conceded the defendant did not shoot the victims but argued he was guilty of felony murder for participating in the robbery and attempted murder as a natural consequence of the robbery.The jury convicted the defendant on all charges, including special circumstances that the murder was committed during a robbery and to further gang activities. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole, and the convictions were affirmed on appeal. In 2022, the defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that the jury's findings did not meet the new requirements for felony murder liability under Senate Bill 1437, which narrowed the scope of vicarious liability for murder.The Superior Court of Orange County summarily denied the petition, citing the jury's finding that the defendant acted with intent to kill. The defendant appealed, arguing that the record did not conclusively establish his ineligibility for resentencing. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred in its denial. The appellate court held that the defendant must have assisted the actual killer in committing the murderous act, not just the underlying felony, to be liable under the revised felony murder rule. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's entitlement to resentencing. View "People v. Kelly" on Justia Law

In 2018 and 2019, a minor, J.S., committed a series of serious crimes, including seven street robberies, two burglaries, an attempted robbery resulting in murder, and the drugging and sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. J.S. was 16 and 17 years old at the time of these offenses. The People filed an 18-count petition against J.S., including charges of murder, robbery, burglary, and sexual assault, and sought to transfer him to adult criminal court.The juvenile court in Ventura County conducted a transfer hearing and found that J.S. was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system's jurisdiction, which would expire when he turned 25. The court considered J.S.'s criminal sophistication, previous delinquent history, and the gravity of the offenses. Despite evidence of J.S.'s participation in rehabilitation programs and expert testimony suggesting potential for rehabilitation, the court concluded that the severity and premeditated nature of his crimes, along with his behavior in custody, indicated a need for prolonged treatment and supervision beyond the juvenile system's capacity.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the juvenile court's decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the transfer order, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings. The appellate court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or substitute its discretion for that of the trial court. The court found that the juvenile court had appropriately considered the statutory criteria and expert testimony, and its conclusion that J.S. was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system was supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "People v. J.S." on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with three felonies related to firearm and ammunition possession. During a traffic stop, police officers discovered a loaded handgun in his vehicle. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the traffic stop was unduly prolonged and pretextual, and dismissed the case.The Sonoma County Superior Court found that the traffic stop was pretextual and unduly prolonged, as the officers could have issued the citation at the gas station where they first observed the defendant. The court also noted that new legislation would make pretextual stops illegal, although this law was not yet in effect. The court concluded that the stop was designed to allow time for a canine unit to arrive and conduct a search, which it deemed unreasonable.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court's finding of an unduly prolonged stop was unsupported by substantial evidence. The appellate court noted that the traffic stop began when the vehicle was pulled over, not when the officers first observed the defendant. The court found that the time taken to write the citation and conduct the canine search was within the normal duration for such activities. Additionally, the court clarified that the new Vehicle Code section 2806.5, which prohibits pretextual stops, was not in effect at the time of the stop and does not alter the federal constitutional analysis regarding pretextual stops. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order suppressing the evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "People v. Valle" on Justia Law

Luis Alfonso Martinez was convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse against a minor, Jane Doe, who was the daughter of his long-term girlfriend. The abuse began when Doe was around seven years old and continued for several years. Martinez was found guilty of attempted sexual penetration of a child under 10, sexual penetration of a child under 10, continuous sexual abuse of a child, lewd acts upon a child under 14, and lewd acts upon a child under 14 by use of force, duress, and fear. The jury also found aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and Martinez's abuse of a position of trust.The Superior Court of Riverside County sentenced Martinez to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life, plus a determinate term of 21 years and four months. Martinez appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the charges were in the alternative, leading to multiple convictions that violated Penal Code section 288.5, subdivision (c). He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the conviction of lewd acts by force, fear, or duress, and claimed the trial court abused its discretion in responding to a jury question about the definition of "sexual penetration."The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, agreed that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on alternative charges was prejudicial error. The appellate court decided to remand the case for a hearing to determine which counts to vacate, rather than ordering a new trial or deciding which counts to dismiss itself. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for lewd acts by force, fear, or duress, noting Martinez's position of authority and the victim's fear. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's response to the jury's question, as the response correctly stated the law and did not prejudice Martinez.The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "P. v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Kavonte Amarion Vaughn sought a writ of mandate to vacate an order denying his request for mental health diversion under California Penal Code sections 1001.35 and 1001.36. Vaughn was charged with two counts of second-degree robbery and one count of second-degree attempted robbery. The trial court found that Vaughn met the eligibility and suitability requirements for mental health diversion, including that he would not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. However, the court denied the diversion, citing Vaughn's failure to make a "serious enough effort" to be deemed suitable for mental health diversion.The Los Angeles County Superior Court initially reviewed the case. Vaughn posted bail and underwent a psychological evaluation, which confirmed his mental health issues, including schizoaffective disorder and PTSD. Despite the trial court's acknowledgment of Vaughn's eligibility, it denied the motion for diversion, focusing on Vaughn's perceived lack of seriousness about his mental health treatment, particularly his failure to bring his medication bottles to the evaluation.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not considering the legislative goals of the mental health diversion law. The appellate court noted that Vaughn had made a prima facie showing of eligibility and suitability for diversion and that the trial court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court emphasized that the trial court's discretion must align with the legislative intent to broadly apply mental health diversion to reduce recidivism and support public safety.The appellate court granted Vaughn's petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying mental health diversion and to grant the motion, barring any evidence of changed circumstances affecting Vaughn's suitability. The trial court must ensure that the recommended mental health treatment program meets Vaughn's specialized needs. View "Vaughn v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Dignity Health, operating as French Hospital Medical Center, filed a complaint against orthopedic surgeon Troy I. Mounts, M.D., and his corporation to recover an advance paid under their Physician Recruitment Agreement. Mounts filed a cross-complaint alleging retaliation for his complaints about patient care quality, interference with his economic opportunities, and unlawful business practices. Dignity responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court initially denied. The appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case for further consideration.Upon remand, the trial court concluded that Mounts had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court found that Dignity's actions were protected by the litigation privilege, the common interest privilege, and were barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the court granted Dignity's motion to strike the cross-complaint and ordered Mounts to pay Dignity's attorney fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that all of Mounts' claims were based on conduct protected by the litigation privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (b)) and the common interest privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (c)). The court also found that Dignity's actions were immune under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 11137) and that some claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court upheld the trial court's orders granting the motion to strike and awarding attorney fees to Dignity. View "Dignity Health v. Mounts" on Justia Law

Jose Cardona appealed a trial court order granting Karina Soto, the mother of his child, a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against him. The DVRO, which expired in November 2023, protected Soto and their daughter. The appeal was not moot despite the DVRO’s expiration because the finding of domestic violence created a five-year statutory presumption against Cardona’s custody of their daughter.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially granted the DVRO based on an incident where Cardona, while drunk, beat his current wife in the presence of their daughter, who he also slapped. Soto claimed Cardona had verbally abused their daughter and forced her to carry his gun on multiple occasions. Cardona admitted to the incident but denied ongoing abuse and claimed Soto was lying to gain full custody. During the hearing, the court interviewed the daughter in chambers without the parties present, and the interview was not reported or documented.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, found that Cardona’s due process rights were violated because he was not informed of the substance of his daughter’s testimony and thus could not respond to it. The court emphasized that while in-chambers interviews of minors are permissible, there must be safeguards to ensure the parent can respond to the testimony. The failure to make any record of the daughter’s testimony left the evidentiary basis for the DVRO unreviewable on appeal. Consequently, the court reversed the DVRO due to the due process violation, though it did not preclude future reliance on other evidence of domestic violence presented. View "Cardona v Soto" on Justia Law