Kathryn Werdegar

The case involved defendant Jacob Townley Hernandez, who was convicted of attempted murder in a gang-related shooting and argued that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by barring his attorney from discussing with him the existence or contents of sealed transcripts and declarations from two witnesses' plea agreements. The California Supreme Court held that such an interference with attorney-client consultation does not automatically require reversal or presume prejudice; instead, the defendant can obtain relief only by showing that the order affected the reliability of the trial process under the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether prejudice occurred. The core reasoning was that not all unwarranted restrictions on counsel's ability to consult with a client justify a presumption of prejudice, particularly when the restriction concerns a specific piece of evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a class action brought by hourly employees against Brinker Restaurant Corporation alleging violations of California wage and hour laws requiring meal and rest periods. The Supreme Court of California reviewed the trial court's certification of three subclasses and the scope of an employer's duty to provide meal breaks. The court concluded that an employer must relieve employees of all duty during meal periods but need not ensure that no work occurs, and it evaluated certification under an abuse-of-discretion standard focused on common policies and evidence. It upheld certification of the rest-break subclass based on evidence of uniform policies, remanded the meal-break subclass for further review, and reversed certification of the off-the-clock subclass for lack of common proof. The opinion addresses threshold legal questions only to the extent they affect the certification decision.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the 1991 murder of Armando Miller, who was shot in the head outside a bank after withdrawing cash for his family's market; defendant John Clyde Abel was identified by witnesses, linked through prior associations and accomplice testimony, and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder with a robbery special circumstance and personal firearm use. The jury imposed a death sentence, which Abel appealed on numerous grounds including evidentiary errors, instructional issues, prosecutorial misconduct, and challenges to the death penalty statute. The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in full, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts, that any errors at trial were not prejudicial, and that the penalty procedures and statute were constitutional under existing precedent.

criminal law

In this case, a minor student sued his high school guidance counselor and the school district for damages from alleged sexual harassment and abuse by the counselor. The trial court sustained the district's demurrer, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, but the California Supreme Court reversed. The court held that while the district could not be held vicariously liable for the counselor's intentional acts outside the scope of employment, it could face liability under Government Code section 815.2 for the negligence of its supervisory or administrative employees in hiring, retaining, or supervising the counselor if they knew or should have known of her propensities and failed to protect the student from foreseeable harm. The decision rests on the principle that school personnel owe students a duty of ordinary care, and a breach by administrators can result in district liability assuming no immunity applies.

civil rightstorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff injured in a car accident caused by the defendant's employee, who sought damages for past medical expenses based on the full amounts billed by providers. The providers had accepted lower payments from the plaintiff's insurer under preexisting contracts and written off the balances, so neither the plaintiff nor her insurer paid the full billed amounts. The trial court allowed the jury to award the full billed sum of about $190,000, but the California Supreme Court reversed, holding that a plaintiff may recover only the amounts actually paid or incurred as economic damages. The court reasoned that damages under Civil Code sections 3281 and 3282 compensate only for actual detriment suffered, and the collateral source rule does not expand recoverable damages to include amounts never owed due to provider agreements.

torts & liability

The case involved two defendants, John Anthony Gonzales and Michael Soliz, members of the Puente gang, who were charged with first-degree murders of three victims: Lester Eaton during a robbery at his market and Elijah Skyles and Gary Price in a retaliatory shooting at a gas station. A Los Angeles County jury convicted both of first-degree murder with special circumstances of multiple murder and murder during robbery, resulting in death sentences for Gonzales on one count and Soliz on two counts, with life without parole on others after penalty phase proceedings. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgments in full, finding no prejudicial errors in the guilt or penalty phases, either individually or cumulatively.

criminal law

In this dependency case, the California Supreme Court addressed whether a father whose parental rights had been terminated at a section 366.26 hearing could appeal a simultaneous order denying the child's grandparents' petition under section 388 to modify the child's placement with them. The father had not challenged the termination of his rights but sought to appeal the placement denial, arguing it should be reversed to restore the prior status. The court held that the father lacked standing to appeal the placement order because he was not aggrieved by it; the termination of his parental rights meant the placement decision could not affect any remaining legal interest he held. The reasoning centered on the principle that only parties with a direct, affected interest may appeal, and here the grandparents were the only potential appellants but had not timely appealed.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns the conviction of inmate Kenneth Ray Bivert for the first-degree murder of fellow inmate Leonard Swartz at Salinas Valley State Prison in 1997, along with an earlier assault on inmate Rick Dixon and findings of special circumstances including a prior first-degree murder conviction and lying in wait. A jury also convicted Bivert of assault with a deadly weapon by a life prisoner, and following a penalty phase trial it returned a verdict of death, which the trial court imposed after denying post-trial motions. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full, holding that the guilt and penalty phase proceedings, including jury instructions on aggravating and mitigating factors, evidentiary rulings, and other claims of error, were free of reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., nonresident former instructors employed by a California-headquartered company sued for unpaid overtime under the Labor Code for work performed entirely within California and sought to base additional claims under the state's unfair competition law (UCL) on both those violations and on alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for work performed entirely in other states. The California Supreme Court held that the Labor Code's overtime rules apply to the work done in California, permitting both direct claims and UCL claims predicated on them, but that the UCL does not apply to the out-of-state FLSA claims. The decision rested on the principle that California labor statutes govern work performed within the state's borders regardless of the employees' residency, while the UCL lacks extraterritorial reach to enforce federal overtime rules for work occurring wholly outside California.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Joseph Shalant, a declared vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, who filed a lawsuit through counsel against Thomas Girardi and National Union Fire Insurance Company over disputed attorney fees from a prior personal injury settlement. After his attorney withdrew and Shalant began representing himself, the defendants moved to dismiss the action for noncompliance with the vexatious litigant statute, and the trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal, and the California Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 391.7 applies only to the initial filing of new litigation in propria persona without prior approval and does not authorize dismissal of an action that was properly filed through counsel even if the plaintiff later proceeds unrepresented. The Court reasoned that the statute's unambiguous language limits its prefiling and dismissal provisions to the filing stage, while separate provisions in sections 391.1 to 391.4 allow defendants to seek security in already pending actions.

procedure

The case involved patients suing a debt collector acting for a dentist for unauthorized disclosure of confidential dental and medical records to credit reporting agencies during efforts to collect a disputed bill. The California Supreme Court addressed whether the patients' claims under the state Confidentiality of Medical Information Act were preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court held that the state law claims were not preempted and reversed the Court of Appeal. The reasoning centered on the conclusion that Congress did not intend to displace state remedies protecting medical privacy interests even where they overlap with credit reporting regulations.

civil rightshealthcarefederal power

This case concerns the conviction of defendant Quang Minh Tran under California's Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act for active participation in a criminal street gang, along with murder and attempted murder arising from a 1997 gang-related shooting incident involving rival gangs. The central legal issue was whether the prosecution could rely on evidence of an offense committed by the defendant himself on a prior occasion as one of the predicate offenses needed to prove a "pattern of criminal gang activity." The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the statute permits a defendant's own separate offense to establish a predicate and that the prosecution is not required to use offenses by other gang members instead. The court reasoned that the plain language of the STEP Act allows such evidence, its probative value for showing gang patterns outweighed potential prejudice, and limiting instructions adequately protected against improper use.

criminal law

The case concerned defendant Paul Anderson, who stole a car from Pamela Thompson and fatally ran her over while fleeing the scene, leading to his convictions for robbery and first-degree felony murder. The California Supreme Court held that the intent element of robbery requires only that the forcible act be motivated by an intent to steal, without any additional requirement of intent to apply force against the victim or cause the victim to feel fear. The court further determined that a trial court has no duty to give a sua sponte instruction on accident when the defendant's theory seeks only to negate the intent element of the charged offense. Any instructional error regarding general intent was deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, leading the court to reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment and uphold the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Vines, a Sacramento County jury convicted defendant Sean Venyette Vines of the first-degree murder of Ronald Lee during a robbery at a McDonald's restaurant, along with multiple counts of robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping to commit robbery, false imprisonment, and felon in possession of a firearm, with firearm use enhancements and prior conviction findings. The jury imposed a death sentence for the murder, which the trial court entered, leading to this automatic appeal. The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, concluding that the evidence supported the verdicts, that the trial court properly handled issues such as jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and penalty phase proceedings, and that any asserted errors, whether individual or cumulative, were not prejudicial under state and federal constitutional standards.

criminal law

This case addressed the scope of California's 'death knell' doctrine, an exception to the one final judgment rule that permits immediate appeals from orders dismissing class action claims. Plaintiff Shaw filed a class action against Bayer over alleged false advertising of the withdrawn drug Baycol, but the trial court sustained a demurrer to both the class allegations and the individual claims, leading to a judgment of dismissal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as to the class claims, treating the demurrer order as immediately appealable under the death knell doctrine and finding the notice of appeal untimely. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the doctrine applies only to orders that terminate class claims while allowing individual claims to proceed; when an order ends both, the ordinary final judgment rule governs to prevent piecemeal appeals. The court reasoned that preservation of individual claims is essential to the doctrine's rationale and that extending it here would create conflicting appeal deadlines without statutory support.

procedure

In this case, Maria Cabral sued Ralphs Grocery Company for the wrongful death of her husband, who died after his pickup truck veered off an interstate highway and collided with a Ralphs tractor-trailer that had stopped on the dirt shoulder for a nonemergency snack break. The jury found both the decedent and the Ralphs driver negligent, allocating 90 percent fault to the decedent and 10 percent to Ralphs, but the Court of Appeal reversed on the ground that Ralphs owed no legal duty to avoid such a collision. The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that California law imposes a general duty on all persons to exercise reasonable care for others' safety under Civil Code section 1714, and that no categorical exception to this duty applies to drivers parking alongside freeways. The court reasoned that collisions by drivers who lose control are not categorically unforeseeable and that public policy does not require exempting such parking from potential liability, leaving questions of breach and comparative fault for the jury.

torts & liability

The case involved defendant Roger Hoan Brady, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder of Manhattan Beach Police Officer Martin Ganz, with true findings on special circumstance allegations that the murder was of a peace officer performing duties, committed to avoid a lawful arrest, and followed a prior murder conviction, as well as personal firearm use. The jury returned a death verdict, which the trial court upheld after denying modification. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full, concluding that the evidence supported the convictions and special circumstances and that no prejudicial error occurred in the admission of evidence, jury instructions, or penalty phase proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned San Francisco's ordinances that gave preferences to minority- and women-owned businesses in awarding public contracts, which were challenged by contractors as violating Article I, section 31 of the California Constitution (a provision barring such race- or gender-based preferences). The city defended the ordinances by arguing that section 31 itself was invalid under the federal equal protection clause's political structure doctrine, as interpreted in cases like Hunter v. Erickson and Washington v. Seattle School District. The California Supreme Court held that section 31 does not violate the political structure doctrine. The core reasoning was that the provision imposes a general, neutral prohibition on race and gender discrimination in public contracting rather than impermissibly restructuring the political process to burden only certain groups seeking equal treatment.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a public construction contract dispute in which a contractor sought extra compensation from the Los Angeles Unified School District for increased costs incurred during the building of an elementary school, alleging the District failed to disclose material information in its possession about site conditions that affected performance, even though the plans and specifications provided were accurate. The California Supreme Court held that a contractor need not prove affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent intent to recover; instead, recovery is available when the public entity knew of and failed to disclose material facts that would affect the contractor's bid or performance costs, subject to four qualifications: the contractor submitted its bid without the information, the entity knew the contractor lacked it and had no reason to obtain it, the furnished information did not put the contractor on notice to inquire, and the entity did not disclose the facts. The core reasoning rested on established California precedent allowing recovery for extra work due to misleading public plans, analogous contract and tort principles recognizing a duty to disclose exclusive knowledge that materially affects a transaction, and limitations ensuring public entities are not insurers against contractor negligence or careless bidding.

business & regulatory

This case involved retail pharmacies suing pharmaceutical manufacturers under California's Cartwright Act for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of brand-name drugs at artificially high levels, resulting in overcharges paid by the pharmacies. The California Supreme Court held that defendants in such antitrust cases generally cannot assert a "pass-on" defense claiming that plaintiffs passed the overcharge on to downstream purchasers, reversing the Court of Appeal's grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The court's reasoning relied on the legislative history of the Cartwright Act following the U.S. Supreme Court's Illinois Brick decision, which demonstrated a preference for the Hanover Shoe rule allowing direct and indirect purchasers to sue while barring the pass-on defense. This approach aligns with the goals of maximizing deterrence of violations, enforcing the antitrust laws, and ensuring disgorgement of unlawful proceeds.

business & regulatory