FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Cal App

People v. Bloom

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) Conviction of defendant for resisting arrest and other related charges, arising from making more than 40 harassing calls to 911 in a single evening, is affirmed over a challenge to a denial of a motion to suppress as a dispatcher lawfully arrested defendant for making the calls and she was not required to physically restrain him or to be present at the time of the arrest.

Samantha C. v. State Dep't of Developmental Serv.

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Government Law, Health Law) In plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate and a request for declaratory relief challenging the determinations made by Harbor Regional Center and the state Department of Developmental Services that she did not have a developmental disability and was therefore not entitled to services under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, trial court's denial is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court's judgment upholding the validity of the regulations is affirmed as they are consistent with section 4512(a); but 2) trial court's determination that plaintiff does not have a developmental disability under the Lanterman Act is reversed as she has a disabling condition related to her birth injuries which requires treatment within the meaning of the part of section 4512(a) known as the fifth category.

Greenspan v. LADT, LLC

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Probate, Trusts & Estates, Property Law & Real Estate) In a trust's suit for breach of contract and other claims against two affiliated companies and individuals, trial court's confirmation of an arbitrator's award against defendants in the amount of $6.34 million is affirmed where: 1) per the JAMS rules, the arbitrator, not a court, determines what issues are arbitrable, and here, the arbitrator determined that the issue of joint and several liability was arbitrable; 2) arbitrator's finding of joint and several liability was rationally related to the parties' contract; 3) as to the timeliness of the final award under JAMS rules, the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the rules cannot be judicially reviewed on the merits; and 4) the suit against the arbitrator was barred by arbitral immunity and would not have caused a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator's impartiality.

People v. Int'l Fid. Ins., Co.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure) In a prosecution of defendant for attempted murder and other crimes, trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a forfeiture and exonerate bail is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in denying the motion as, although defendant was subject to a greater potential maximum penalty under the first amended information than he had been under the original complaint, the charges in the first amended information were based on the same acts alleged in the complaint; and 2) the certificate of mailing of the notice of forfeiture which was signed by a deputy clerk on behalf of the clerk of the court was properly executed.

Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc. Inc.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor & Employment Law) In a suit brought by about 4000 current and former employees against an employer, claiming that the company, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California, denied meal and rest breaks and failed to pay for overtime, trial court's denial of their motion for class certification is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) order denying the motion for class certification as to the meal break class and the rest break class is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not predominate over individual issues; and 2) order denying the motion for class certification as to the overtime-pay class is reversed and remanded.

Baker v. Am. Horticulture Supply, Inc.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Contracts, Labor & Employment Law, Remedies, Wholesale) In an independent wholesale sales representative's suit for breach of contract, promissory fraud, and a violation under the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the breach of contract and promissory fraud claims in concluding that the award of damages was excessive and that plaintiff was not entitled to a 10% commission in alleged sales; and 2) trial court's grant of defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the violation of the Act claim is reversed as the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant willfully failed to enter into a written contract as required by the Act.

Yanez v. SOMA Envtl. Eng'g, Inc.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Injury And Tort Law, Remedies) In plaintiff's suit for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident, trial court's grant of defendants' motion to reduce the award for medical expenses from $44,519.01 to $18,368.24 is reversed and remanded where: 1) trial court erred in reducing plaintiff's damages to the amount actually paid by her insurers as the amounts written off by plaintiff's health care providers constitute collateral benefits of her insurance; and 2) on remand, the trial court is to award plaintiff prejudgment interest under Civ. Code section 3291.

In re Marriage of Hartman

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Family Law) Trial court's denial of wife's motion to vacate an order restraining her from interfering with ex-husband's child custody time is affirmed as the restraining order is neither ambiguous nor overbroad.

People v. Lopez

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) Conviction of defendant for molesting his two stepdaughters, including convictions for committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14, is affirmed as, under the totality of the circumstances, the evidence supported a reasonable finding that there was a touching concurrent with lewd intent, in violation of section 288(a).

People v. Tompkins

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Sentencing) Defendant's conviction of multiple counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under the age of 14 is affirmed over claims: 1) that the corpus delicti rule prohibited convicting him of acts described only by his out-of-court statements; 2) victim's generic testimony was insufficient to establish his guilt; 3) that there was no evidence that he filed the victim; 4) that the trial court erred in allowing a detective to testify as an expert on child sex abuse victims; and 5) that imposition the upper term for one count violated his constitutional rights.

Espinosa v. Kirkwood

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Injury And Tort Law) In plaintiffs' suit against the driver of their getaway vehicle (they were participants in a burglary) for damages for personal injuries sustained in a vehicle collision while fleeing from the police, judgment of the trial court is affirmed as, because their injuries were "in any way proximately caused by their commission of a felony or immediate flight therefrom," plaintiffs were barred from recovering damages based on negligence.

Madain v. City of Stanton

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Rights, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate challenging the city's denial of his application for a permit to operate an adult-oriented cabaret, on the ground that the location selected by the plaintiff was within 300 feet of a planned church, is reversed and remanded as the city abused its discretion in failing to address whether plaintiff's application was presented to, and should have been accepted by, the city prior to the date the church filed its own application in determining whether the church's application was legitimately entitled to sensitive use priority.

Schaffer v. Superior Court

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) Defendant's request for extraordinary relief to set aside an order of the superior court denying his motion to compel the People to provide copies of discovery under Penal Code section 1054.1 free of charge, is denied as section 1054.1 imposes no such duty on the prosecution as the People comply with section 1054.1 by affording a defendant an opportunity to examine, inspect, or copy the discoverable items, and a non-indigent defendant may receive at his or her expense copies of discovery made available by the People.

People v. Garcia

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Remedies, Sentencing) Trial court's restitution order following defendant's no contest plea to a single count of felony false imprisonment by force in exchange for dismissing a rape charge and another separate case is affirmed where: 1) the trial court appropriately allowed only a limited inquiry into the confidences of the psychotherapist-patient relationship, compelling disclosure of only those matters directly relevant to the issue of restitution for the victim's therapy costs; 2) by not requesting at the restitution hearing, enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum, defendant forfeited his objection on appeal; 3) there was sufficient evidence establishing that the doctor charged the victim $4,764.71 for therapy and that the victim was ultimately responsible for paying that amount; and 4) defendant's objection to the doctor's $500 witness fee is forfeited.

In re Kyle E.

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Family Law, Juvenile Law) In juvenile dependency proceedings, the juvenile court's visitation order is reversed and remanded as it unlawfully delegated the responsibility of whether or not the father's visitation would occur at all to the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services.