California Court of Appeal, 2nd District — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal · 1990-08-03 · cited 13×
The case involved parents suing the City of Los Angeles for the wrongful death of their son, alleging that city paramedics failed to provide medical assistance after he was shot, leading to his death. The trial court sustained the city's demurrer to the complaint, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that, absent a special relationship, there is no general duty for individuals or emergency personnel to come to the aid of another, and the paramedics had not created the peril or induced reliance on a promise of assistance. It further noted that no statute imposed a mandatory duty to render aid on the paramedics.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Pacific Employers Insurance v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal · 1990-07-02 · cited 59×
The case concerned whether Pacific Employers Insurance Company (PEIC) was obligated to defend and indemnify the estate of Richard Rausch under a "claims made" professional liability policy that required both that claims be made against the insured and reported to PEIC during the policy period. After the insured's death, creditors' claims were made against the estate before the policy expired but were not reported to PEIC until after expiration due to the handling attorney's inaction; PEIC denied coverage, leading to litigation that included a malpractice claim against the attorney. The trial court denied PEIC's motion for summary judgment, applying a notice-prejudice requirement, but the appellate court granted a writ directing summary judgment for PEIC. The court held that the policy language was unambiguous in mandating reporting within the policy period, that the notice-prejudice rule did not apply to override the clear terms of this claims-made policy, and that the reporting requirement did not violate public policy or restrict the insured's freedom to contract.
business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure
People v. Thomas
California Court of Appeal · 1990-03-22 · cited 61×
In People v. Thomas, the defendant was convicted by jury of multiple counts of robbery, kidnapping for robbery, forcible rape in concert, oral copulation in concert, and related offenses involving several victims over a three-week period, with various firearm enhancements found true, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 81.4 years to life. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's decisions to discharge one juror for bias against police officers during deliberations, replace another due to employment hardship, accept partial verdicts from the partially reconstituted jury, and make further juror substitutions before final verdicts. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in managing the jury issues, as the substitutions were necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice and the partial verdicts were properly recorded, while directing the jury to begin deliberations anew each time. The court modified the sentence on certain counts to comply with Penal Code section 1170.1 regarding consecutive terms for non-violent felonies but otherwise affirmed the convictions.
criminal lawprocedure
Leff v. City of Monterey Park
California Court of Appeal · 1990-02-22 · cited 12×
The case concerned petitioners, including John Nugen, who sought ordinary and administrative mandamus plus declaratory relief to block the City of Monterey Park from approving a home for the aged in an R-2 residential zone. The trial court sustained a demurrer against Nugen alone, holding that he lacked standing because he had not exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed that ruling after accepting the complaint's allegations as true and finding that Nugen had attempted to appeal the Planning Commission's decisions on variances and the conditional use permit, but the City rejected those appeals as untimely or improper. The court concluded that the pleadings raised sufficient questions about the availability and timing of administrative remedies, including the effect of the developer's withdrawal and reactivation of its application, to allow the action to proceed.
propertyprocedure
Rosenau v. Heimann
California Court of Appeal · 1990-02-05 · cited 2×
In this case, plaintiffs sued their attorney for unauthorized use of funds they had placed in accounts as authorized signatory after immigrating from Germany. A jury awarded them compensatory and punitive damages, but the trial court granted a conditional new trial on excessive damages unless plaintiffs accepted reduced amounts via remittitur, which they did under protest; defendant then appealed the judgment but his appeal was dismissed for default. Plaintiffs cross-appealed the damages reduction and denial of prejudgment interest. The court dismissed the cross-appeal under the rule that a plaintiff who accepts a remittitur generally waives the right to appeal that issue, as defendant's dismissed appeal left plaintiffs with the benefits of the reduced judgment; however, it ordered defendant to pay plaintiffs' reasonable attorney fees incurred due to the procedural posture he created.
procedure
Watson v. Fair Political Practices Commission
California Court of Appeal · 1990-02-02 · cited 11×
The case involved challenges by state legislators, constituents, and other elected officials to the constitutionality of Government Code section 89001, as amended by Proposition 73, which prohibits sending any newsletter or other mass mailing at public expense. The trial court initially ruled the statute unconstitutional but later upheld it in a related enforcement action. The Court of Appeal consolidated the cases and reversed the initial ruling while affirming the later one, concluding that the prohibition neither interferes with the Legislature's authority to govern its internal affairs nor burdens the exercise of any fundamental right. The opinion reviewed the history of publicly funded legislative newsletters, the savings projected from the ban, and arguments regarding internal legislative rules and speech interests but found no constitutional violation.
electionsfree speech