Stanley Mosk

This case is an antitrust action brought by a California consumer on behalf of retail buyers of CARB gasoline against major petroleum companies, alleging a conspiracy among competitors to restrict output and raise prices in violation of the Cartwright Act (and derivatively the unfair competition law). The defendants each moved for summary judgment, supported by declarations from company officers stating that capacity, production, and pricing decisions were made independently without collusion. After extensive discovery, the superior court granted the motions, the Court of Appeal reviewed the ruling, and the California Supreme Court granted review specifically to clarify the legal standards courts must apply when ruling on summary judgment motions in antitrust conspiracy cases and in civil actions generally, including the burdens of production and the treatment of evidence such as information exchanges and exchange agreements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a conflict between California's statutory right of publicity, which allows successors of deceased celebrities to control commercial use of their name, voice, photograph, or likeness, and the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech. Comedy III Productions sued Gary Saderup for selling lithographs and T-shirts featuring reproductions of the Three Stooges without consent. The court held that Saderup's works were not protected by the First Amendment because they lacked significant creative elements that would transform them into something more than mere celebrity likenesses. The core reasoning established a balancing test weighing the right of publicity against free speech, under which reproductions receive no special exemption simply for being art, and the publicity right prevailed here as the items were unauthorized commercial merchandise.

free speechproperty

The case Galland v. City of Clovis involved mobilehome park owners challenging a city's rent control ordinance, claiming that excessively low rent ceilings and burdensome administrative processes violated their constitutional due process rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The California Supreme Court held that a future rent adjustment, known as a Kavanau adjustment, could preclude a section 1983 damages claim if it adequately compensates for prior confiscatory rents, and remanded the case to the rent control agency to determine such an adjustment. The court further concluded that unreasonable costs imposed on landlords seeking rent increases could support a section 1983 claim only if they deliberately flouted established law or resulted in confiscation, requiring remand to the trial court for proper calculation of any damages. The opinion addresses the relationship between rent control remedies and federal civil rights actions.

propertycivil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In People v. Jones, the defendant was convicted of multiple forcible sex offenses against one victim, along with enhancements for kidnapping and personal use of a deadly weapon; the trial court imposed multiple life terms under the one-strike law and weapon enhancements, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court of California granted review to interpret Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (g), which requires a single life term for offenses against one victim on a single occasion, and to determine whether post-offense weapon use qualifies as use in the commission of the offenses under sections 12022.3 and 667.61. The court held that offenses occur on a single occasion if they share close temporal and spatial proximity, so the defendant's acts constituted one occasion warranting only one life term, and that weapon use after the sexual acts can support the enhancement if it increased the threat of harm by threatening or controlling the victim. It therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal on these sentencing issues.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute over whether disability coverage under California's Cal-Vet home protection plan, a self-funded benefit program for veterans purchasing homes through the Department of Veterans Affairs, is subject to the mandatory provisions of the Insurance Code. The plaintiff, a veteran whose disability claim was denied based on a pre-existing condition under the plan's terms, contended that the coverage qualified as insurance regulated by the Insurance Code. The court decided that the coverage does not constitute insurance subject to the Insurance Code and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The core reasoning was that the plan operates as a specialized state benefits program under the Veterans’ Farm and Home Purchase Act of 1974, administered directly by the Department with no private insurer assuming liability, rendering the overlapping regulatory authority of the Insurance Code inapplicable and inconsistent with the legislative framework.

business & regulatory

The case involved defendant David Hans Morales, who was charged with illegal possession of phencyclidine (PCP) under Health and Safety Code section 11377(a), along with prior conviction allegations. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Morales was found under the influence of PCP near a van containing a vial of the substance, and the prosecutor argued in closing that the jury could infer possession from his state of intoxication. The California Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the prosecutor's summation constituted prejudicial misconduct. The court decided that the prosecutor's statements did not require reversal of the conviction. Its reasoning focused on the sufficiency of the evidence under the given jury instructions regarding possession, knowledge, and circumstantial evidence, concluding that the arguments did not misstate the law in a manner that prejudiced the defendant.

criminal law

In Ketchum v. Moses, a landlord filed suit against a tenant who had reported building code violations to local agencies, alleging the complaints were false and harassing; the tenant responded with a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. The superior court granted the motion, dismissed the relevant claims, and later awarded the tenant attorney fees that included a lodestar figure enhanced by a multiplier of two to account for contingent risk and the quality of counsel's work. The California Supreme Court granted review on the fee calculation and held that the award was not properly calculated under the statute. The opinion examines the standards for applying lodestar multipliers in statutory fee-shifting cases and remands for further proceedings consistent with those standards.

free speechprocedurecivil rights

The case In re Cervera involved a defendant with three strikes under California's Three Strikes law who was sentenced to a mandatory indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years for second-degree robbery, along with a determinate term. The petitioner sought habeas corpus relief claiming he should receive prison conduct credits under article 2.5 against his indeterminate life term, as initially interpreted by the Department of Corrections. The California Supreme Court held that the Three Strikes law does not authorize such credits against indeterminate terms of life imprisonment. The court's reasoning was that article 2.5 credits apply only to determinate terms, and the Three Strikes law's credit limitation provision does not extend eligibility to indeterminate sentences, consistent with the statutory distinction between fixed and non-fixed terms.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether standard comprehensive general liability insurance policies required insurers to indemnify an insured oil company for expenses incurred to comply with administrative cleanup orders issued by regional water boards under California's Porter-Cologne Act. The California Supreme Court held that the insurers' duty to indemnify was limited to sums the insured became legally obligated to pay as damages pursuant to a court judgment or settlement, and did not extend to costs imposed by administrative agencies. The court's reasoning focused on the policy language requiring payment of sums "as damages," which it interpreted as referring to money ordered by a court, consistent with its prior decision in Foster-Gardner limiting the duty to defend to civil suits prosecuted in court. The decision also examined related policy provisions such as the no-action clause to confirm this scope.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a challenge by Gerawan Farming to a California marketing order that required agricultural producers to fund generic advertising for their commodities, raising claims that this compulsion violated free speech protections. The California Supreme Court held that the order did not implicate any right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., but that it did implicate a right under article I, section 2 of the California Constitution. The court's reasoning distinguished the narrower federal protection from the broader state constitutional language protecting liberty of speech, while noting that the federal precedent applied only to the First Amendment claim and did not control the state analysis.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Hector Juan Ayala, who was charged with three murders, attempted murder, robbery, and related offenses arising from a 1985 incident at an auto body repair shop in which three men were killed during a robbery attempt motivated by suspected drugs or cash; the jury convicted him on most counts, found special circumstances of multiple murder and murder during attempted robbery true, and imposed the death penalty. The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence on automatic appeal. The core reasoning addressed claims of error in the guilt and penalty phases, including the handling of peremptory challenges to jurors under Wheeler/Batson standards, concluding that any procedural irregularities such as ex parte hearings did not warrant reversal because the record permitted adequate appellate review and did not demonstrate prejudice.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case was an automatic appeal from a death judgment in which defendant Deondre Arthur Staten was charged with the first-degree murders of his parents, Arthur and Faye Staten, between October 12 and 13, 1990. The information alleged special circumstances of murder for financial gain and multiple murder, plus personal use of a firearm and a knife. A jury found Staten guilty of both murders, found the special circumstances true, and fixed the punishment at death for each; the trial court imposed the death sentence along with stayed weapon enhancements. On appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment after reviewing the guilt-phase evidence of planning and financial motive, the penalty-phase factors, and various claims of instructional and procedural error, concluding there was no prejudicial error warranting reversal.

criminal law

The case concerned whether California's Milk and Milk Products Act of 1947, which sets stricter standards of identity for whole milk, lowfat milk, and skim milk (including higher nonfat milk solids content), applies exclusively or whether less stringent federal standards under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 can serve as alternatives. The court held that the more stringent state provisions alone apply to milk and milk products sold in California. It reasoned that the federal preemption rule in the NLEA does not displace the state standards, as the state requirements predate and exceed federal ones without qualifying for federal alternatives under section 32912, and interstate commerce considerations do not override California's authority here.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., two employees sued their former employer for wrongful termination and sexual orientation discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act after their positions were eliminated, but the employer moved to compel arbitration based on a mandatory clause in their employment agreements. The California Supreme Court held that FEHA claims are arbitrable if the arbitration process allows employees to fully vindicate their statutory rights through a neutral arbitrator, adequate discovery, a written decision, and cost limitations. The Court further determined that the specific agreement was unenforceable because it contained a damages limitation that violated public policy and was unconscionably one-sided in favor of the employer. The Court concluded that these defects rendered the entire arbitration agreement invalid rather than permitting severance of the offending provisions.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, Jonathan Post filed a wage claim with the California Labor Commissioner against Palo/Haklar & Associates under Labor Code section 98, alleging unpaid wages for work performed in 1994-1995. After an administrative hearing, the commissioner dismissed the claim on the ground that an employer-employee relationship was not conclusively established and thus declined jurisdiction. Post appealed to the superior court, which held a de novo hearing, found an employment relationship, and awarded him over $28,000 in wages and expenses. The Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that the commissioner's jurisdictional dismissal was not appealable and that Post should have filed an original civil action instead. The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that the commissioner's notice of dismissal after a Berman hearing is subject to de novo review in superior court, as supported by the statutory language providing for appeal from orders, decisions, or awards and the legislative history and purpose of providing expeditious resolution of wage claims.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved defendant Ronaldo Ayala, who was charged with three counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and several robbery and attempted robbery counts arising from a 1985 incident at an automobile repair shop in which three victims were killed and a fourth survived after escaping. The jury convicted Ayala on all counts, found true the special circumstance allegations of multiple murder and murder during an attempted robbery, and returned a death verdict following the penalty phase; the trial court entered judgment accordingly. On automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court, the opinion addressed numerous claims of error, including issues related to the defendant's absence from certain proceedings without a written waiver, evidentiary rulings, and other procedural matters during both the guilt and penalty phases. The court determined that any errors were either nonexistent or nonprejudicial under the applicable standards, leading to affirmance of the convictions and death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether PLCM Group, Inc., which was represented by its own in-house counsel in litigation to recover an unpaid insurance deductible from attorney David Drexler under a reimbursement provision in the policy, could recover attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717. The California Supreme Court held that an entity represented by in-house counsel may recover such fees, affirming the Court of Appeal. The court reasoned that in-house counsel maintain an attorney-client relationship with the corporation and provide legal services comparable to those of outside counsel, leaving the trial court with broad discretion to determine a reasonable fee award under the statute using methods such as the lodestar approach.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with murder and burglary who was initially found mentally incompetent to stand trial under Penal Code section 1369, which presumes competence unless incompetence is proved by a preponderance of the evidence, placing the burden on the party asserting incompetence. After treatment at a state hospital, the hospital certified his recovery of competence under Penal Code section 1372, and the trial court found him competent at a hearing without referencing any presumption or burden of proof. The California Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the same presumption and burden rules from section 1369 apply to recovery hearings under section 1372, concluding that they do. The court reasoned that both statutes govern mental competence inquiries in criminal cases and that Evidence Code section 500 and related principles require the party claiming incompetence to bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. It affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding the competence finding and reinstatement of proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a juvenile dependency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, in which the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency petitioned to declare Lucero L. a dependent child based on allegations that her father had sexually abused her. The central issue was whether the minor's out-of-court statements, contained in a social study and made by a child deemed incompetent to testify due to inability to distinguish truth from falsehood, could be admitted and relied upon under the amended section 355 even if they did not meet the reliability standards from the prior decision in In re Cindy L. The California Supreme Court held that such hearsay statements may be admitted into evidence, but a jurisdictional finding cannot rest solely on them unless the court determines they possess special indicia of reliability; the court further found the statements in this case met that standard and therefore affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment upholding dependency jurisdiction. The decision interpreted section 355 in light of its legislative history and the relationship to the child dependency hearsay exception, concluding that the statute does not impose a categorical bar based on the declarant's testimonial incompetence. The court also addressed related due process considerations when statements are quoted by social workers or officers.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case concerned whether California's special statute of limitations for asbestos-related injuries (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.2) barred a worker's second lawsuit for malignant peritoneal mesothelioma after he had already sued the same defendant for asbestosis arising from the same workplace exposure decades earlier. Plaintiff Arthur Mitchell filed the first action in 1993 following his 1979 asbestosis diagnosis and the second action in 1996 after his mesothelioma diagnosis; the trial court consolidated the cases and entered judgment for the plaintiff, but the Court of Appeal held the second claim time-barred. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations for each distinct asbestos-related disease is triggered separately by the plaintiff's disability from that disease, so the mesothelioma claim was timely even though the asbestosis claim had been filed earlier. The court reasoned that the statutory text ties accrual to the date of disability from the particular injury or illness at issue and that prior precedent and legislative inaction supported treating separate diseases as giving rise to separate causes of action.

proceduretorts & liability