California Case Law

Langhorne v. Sup. Ct.

2009-11-17T18:32:41Z

Petitions for writ of mandate challenging trial court's denial of petitioners' motions to dismiss recommitment petitions, brought after the trial court granted People's motions to convert petitioners' involuntary two-year commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) to an indeterminate term under the 2006 amendment to the SVPA, are denied where: 1) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the People made a good faith mistake of law when they failed to timely file the recommitment petitions before the expirations of petitioners' most recent two-year commitment periods; 2) the good-faith exception of section 6601(a)(2) precludes dismissal of the untimely recommitment petitions because petitioners' unlawful custody was due to People's mistake of law; and 3) therefore, the trial court properly denied petitioners' motions to dismiss and the court has jurisdiction to proceed on the petitions.

Read Langhorne v. Sup. Ct., No. H033845 [HTML]

Read Langhorne v. Sup. Ct., No. H033845 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 16, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bamattre-Manoukian

Counsel
For Appellant: Mary J. Greenwood, Public Defender, Michael S. Ogul, Deputy Public Defender, Matthew M. Wilson, Deputy Public Defender

For Appellee: Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Bridget Billeter, Deputy Attorney General

Mangano v. Verity, Inc., No. H033286

2009-11-17T18:26:03Z

In plaintiff's suit against his former employer for retaliatory termination, judgment pursuant to a jury's verdict in favor of defendant and denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of plaintiff's alleged disability as he failed to make known to the court the purpose and relevance of the evidence to any other issue; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a proposed settlement agreement fell within Evidence Code section 1152's broad scope.

Read Mangano v. Verity, Inc., No. H033286 [HTML]

Read Mangano v. Verity, Inc., No. H033286 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 16, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mihara

Counsel
For Appellant: Stephen R. Jaffe

For Appellee: Gregory L. Doll, Hunter R. Eley, Doll Amir & Eley LLP

Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B209336

2009-11-16T16:55:53Z

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision and award finding the employer liable for discrimination against an industrially injured employee because the employer did not accept a physician's release to allow the employee to return to work is annulled as the employee did not establish a prima facie showing of employer's liability for discrimination in violation of Labor Code section 132a, and as such, the burden did not shift to the employer to establish an affirmative defense.

Read Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B209336 [HTML]

Read Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B209336 [PDF]

Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Kitching

Counsel

For Appellant: Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Paul W. Crane, Jr., Molly A. Harcos; Law Offices of Daniel P. Goggins and Daniel P. Goggins

For Appellee: Goldschmid, Silver & Spindel and Lawrence Silver

Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, No. B208699

2009-11-16T16:49:05Z

In a dispute over whether plaintiff's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in a trademark infringement action under an "advertising injury" policy, summary judgment for insurance company is affirmed as the prior publication exclusion in the policy bars coverage for trademark infringement in this case.

Read Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, No. B208699 [HTML]

Read Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, No. B208699 [PDF]

Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mosk

Counsel

For Appellant: Law Offices of Mark L. Sutton, Mark L. Sutton

For Appellee: Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Cheryl A. Orr, David A. Tartaglio; Bates & Carey, Richard H. Nicolaides, Jr., Jonathan T. Viner, Daniel I. Graham, Jr., and Agelo L. Reppas

People v. Pakes, No. H032734

2009-11-16T16:41:57Z

Defendant's sentence to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life to run consecutive to a determinate term of four years for child endangerment, evading a police officer, and hit and run causing property damage, is reversed and remanded for resentencing where the trial court's determination that defendant maintained multiple criminal objectives with regard to his conviction for evading a police officer was not supported by sufficient evidence. Also, on resentencing, the court may reconsider its ruling on a one-year prior enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.

Read People v. Pakes, No. H032734 [HTML]

Read People v. Pakes, No. H032734 [PDF]

Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mihara

Counsel
For Appellant: Dallas Sacher

For Appellee: Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stan Helfman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Deputy Attorney General.

People v. Concha, No. S163811

2009-11-13T20:22:30Z

Conviction of defendants for first degree murder of their accomplice, who was killed by the intended victim of an apparent attempted robbery, is reversed and remanded where: 1) a defendant may be convicted of first degree murder under the provocative act doctrine if the defendant personally acted willfully, and with premeditation during the attempted murder; but 2) the jury instructions on first degree murder failed to require the jury to find whether each defendant personally acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation during the course of the attempted murder of the victim.

Read People v. Concha, No. S163811 [HTML]

Read People v. Concha, No. S163811 [PDF]

Appellate Information
Appeal from Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C148565

Filed November12, 2009

Judges
Before: George, C. J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Moreno, J., and Kennard, J., Corrigan, J.

Opinion by Corrigan, J.

Counsel
For Appellant: Maria Morrison, Diana M. Teran

For Appellee: Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Scott A. Taryle and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General

State of Arizona v. Yuen, No. B210459

2009-11-13T20:12:48Z

Grant of defendant's motion to vacate a sister state judgment and denial of Arizona's motion for reconsideration, arising from defendant's incorporation of a company in Arizona at her husband's request, is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that: 1) defendant had no notice of the Arizona administrative proceedings; 2) defendant did not retain the lawyer as her attorney; and 3) defendant never signed a written waiver of the lawyer's conflict of interest in representing clients with opposing interests.

Read State of Arizona v. Yuen, No. B210459 [HTML]

Read State of Arizona v. Yuen, No. B210459 [PDF]

Filed November 12, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Flier

Counsel

For Appellant: The Guerrini Law Firm, John D. Guerrini and David Brand

For Appellee: Law Offices of J. Steven Kennedy and J. Steven Kennedy

Cassel v. Sup. Ct., No. B215215

2009-11-13T20:07:38Z

In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit, his request for writ of relief from two orders excluding evidence in favor of his former attorneys is granted and the orders vacated as the communications are a client and his attorney, outside the presence of, and not otherwise communicated to, any opposing party or the mediator, and reveal nothing said or done in the mediation discussion.

Read Cassel v. Sup. Ct., No. B215215 [HTML]

Read Cassel v. Sup. Ct., No. B215215 [PDF]

Filed November13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Jackson

Counsel

For Appellant: Makarem & Associates, Ronald W. Makarem, Peter M. Kunstler and Jamie R. Greene

For Appellee: Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Peter Q. Ezzell, Nancy E. Lucas and Stephen M. Caine

City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B211331

2009-11-13T20:01:50Z

City's petition for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarding the full $125,000 death benefit to the California Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit (DWD Unit), notwithstanding the City's payment of $104,208 in death benefits to the deceased worker's estate pursuant to Labor Code section 4702(a)(6)(B) is annulled because the escheat of a death benefit to the state after partial payment to the estate, in effect the award of two death benefits for a single death, is inconsistent with the governing statutes and the legislative policy they implement.

Read City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B211331 [HTML]

Read City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B211331 [PDF]

Filed November 12, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Perluss

Counsel

For Appellant: Gurvitz Marlowe & Miller and Diane E. Phillips

For Appellee: N/A

Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. E044098

2009-11-11T19:28:42Z

In plaintiff's wrongful death suit against the defendant, arising from an accident where a pickup truck driven by plaintiff's deceased husband collided with a tractor-trailer driven by defendant's employee, a jury verdict for plaintiff is reversed and remanded where: 1) as a matter of law, the employee owed no duty to the decedent to avoid stopping in the emergency parking area; 2) the employee's negligence did not proximately cause the accident, and notwithstanding the conclusion that the record does not contain substantial evidence that the employee's negligent act or omission caused plaintiff's injuries, plaintiff cannot recover against defendant based on the facts in the record as a matter of public policy; and 3) the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of plaintiff's expert on causation and as such, the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.

Read Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. E044098 [HTML]

Read Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. E044098 [PDF]

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Hollenhorst

Counsel

For Appellant: Bell, Orrock & Watase, Stanley Orrock; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Timothy T. Coates and Lillie Hsu

For Appellee: Shernoff Bidart Darras Escheverria, Frank N. Darras, Lissa A. Martinez; Donahue and Horrow and Michael B. Horrow

Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Sup. Ct., No. B212761

2009-11-11T19:22:12Z

In plaintiffs' suit against the defendant-Cruise Line brought under the California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the False Advertising Law (FAL), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), over charges added to the price of shore excursions taken during a cruise, trial court's order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment is vacated and remanded where: 1) trial court erred in concluding that the CLRA cause of action was barred by Civil Code 1781(c); 2) a plaintiff asserting UCL, FAL and CLRA must show that he or she relied on the defendant's misrepresentations; 3) plaintiffs did not rely on any representations made by defendants; 4) there are no material questions of fact about the cost of excursions.

Read Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Sup. Ct., No. B212761 [HTML]

Read Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Sup. Ct., No. B212761 [PDF]

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Flier

Counsel

For Appellant: Kaye, Rose & Partners, Bradley M. Rose, Carolyn J. Kaye, Aksana Moshaiv and André M. Picciurro

For Appellee: Bailey Law Group, Mohammed K. Ghods and William A. Stahr

Sustainable Transp. Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Ass'n of Gov'ts, No. B212524

2009-11-11T19:16:12Z

Denial of plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate the approval of Measure A, which imposes a retail sales and use tax to fund transportation projects in the county, is affirmed as a prior CEQA environmental review was not required as Measure A falls within the funding mechanism exclusion of the CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) because it does not constitute a binding commitment to construct the projects set forth in the investment plan.

Read Sustainable Transp. Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Ass'n of Gov'ts, No. B212524 [HTML]

Read Sustainable Transp. Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Ass'n of Gov'ts, No. B212524 [PDF]

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Perren

Counsel

For Appellant: Eugene S. Wilson

For Appellee: Dennis Marshall, County Counsel, Kevin E. Ready, Sr., Senior Deputy County Counsel; Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, Whitman F. Manley, Tiffany K. Wright and Christopher J. Butcher

Bus Riders Union v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Agency, No. B212145

2009-11-11T19:08:45Z

Denial of plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate in their challenge of the use by defendant-Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) of a statutory rate-setting exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is affirmed where: 1) the administrative record contains substantial evidence that MTA's fare increase was enacted for one or more permissible purposes under Pub. Resources Code section 21080(b)(8); and 2) the MTA's findings satisfy the specificity requirement in that provision.

Read Bus Riders Union v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Agency, No. B212145 HTML]

Read Bus Riders Union v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Agency, No. B212145 [PDF]

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Boren

Counsel

For Appellant: Natural Resources Defense Council, David Pettit, Tim Grabiel

For Appellee: Jones Day, Elwood Lui, Brian D. Hershman, Brian M. Hoffstadt, Erica L. Reilley

Jackson v. Yarbray, No. B204321

2009-11-11T19:02:07Z

In plaintiffs' malicious prosecution action against defendants involving an ealier case that arose from unsuccessful efforts to merge with businesses owned by defendants, trial court's finding that defendants are liable for the malicious prosecution of a civil action and award of $700,000 in general damages for emotional distress and $2.41 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the judgment as to defendant's counsel who had represented them for part of the time the action was pending is affirmed in its entirety as the trial court did not err in concluding plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving counsel had acted with malice; 2) portion of the judgment awarding compensatory damages is reversed in part and remanded to determine the amount of attorney fees and costs properly recoverable as special damages by the plaintiffs as the trial court erred in precluding any recovery by the plaintiffs for attorney fees incurred in defending the underlying action; and 3) judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects.

Read Jackson v. Yarbray, No. B204321 [HTML]

Read Jackson v. Yarbray, No. B204321 [PDF]

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Perluss

Counsel

For Appellant: Law Offices of Yvonne M. Renfrew and Yvonne M. Renfrew

For Appellee: Robert T. Yarbray, Lobb Cliff & Lester, Mark S. Lester, Robert J. Mitchell and Orlando J. Villalba, for Best Best & Krieger, LLP

In re Jennifer S., No. A122900

2009-11-11T18:52:13Z

Juvenile court's order placing defendant on home probation for violation of County Code section 9.42.020, which makes it a misdemeanor for a person under age 21 to have a blood alcohol level of .01 percent or more while in a public place within the County, is affirmed and defendant's claim that the ordinance is preempted by state law rejected where: 1) the field of underage drinking is not fully occupied; 2) the ordinance was enacted to prohibit consumption; 3) the ordinance does not duplicate state law; and 4) defendant's argument that the potential adverse effects of the ordinance on transient citizens outweighs the possible benefits to the county is rejected.

Read In re Jennifer S., No. A122900 [HTML]

Read In re Jennifer S., No. A122900 [PDF]

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Simons

Counsel

For Appellant: Surowitz & Bell and Bobby Bell

For Appellee: Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence K. Sullivan and Martin S. Kaye, Deputy Attorneys General