California Court of Appeal, 2nd District — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
Fox v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
California Court of Appeal · 1992-03-24 · cited 10×
The case involved Dr. J. DeWitt Fox, who filed medical liens totaling about $59,000 for treating an employee injured in an industrial accident, including back surgery, but faced repeated delays in obtaining a hearing on the merits before a workers' compensation judge. After the lien claim was set for hearing and no one appeared on the doctor's behalf due to his illness and staff issues, the WCJ issued a notice of intent to disallow the lien and later an order disallowing it; a petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely. The court annulled the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's order denying relief from default and remanded the matter, reasoning that the doctor may not have received proper notice or service, that procedural protections under Labor Code section 5506 and related rules require an opportunity to be heard for lien claimants, and that excusable neglect or illness could support relief similar to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.
labor & employmentprocedure
Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
California Court of Appeal · 1992-03-17 · cited 55×
The case involved a consumer who purchased a Toyota vehicle and sued the manufacturer and dealer for breach of warranties after discovering defective brakes, seeking damages, rescission, and remedies under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson-Moss Act. After winning a judgment of $22,619.52 including a civil penalty, the plaintiff sought over $142,000 in costs and attorney fees, but the trial court granted a motion to tax costs and reduced the attorney fees to $30,000 along with other adjustments, awarding a total of $33,412.54. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statutes require only reasonable costs and fees as determined by the court and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in reducing the amounts based on the case's limited complexity, the modest recovery, and exaggerated billing. The court rejected claims for additional fees on the costs motion and deductions related to a settled co-defendant.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Batiste v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal · 1992-03-10
The case involved petitioner Reggie Jermaine Batiste, who was charged under Los Angeles Municipal Code section 56.30(e) with trespassing by entering a posted, fenced area of Los Angeles International Airport without written consent while collecting bottles. Batiste petitioned for a writ of mandate after the municipal court overruled his demurrer, arguing that the local ordinance was preempted by Penal Code section 602(t), which addresses unauthorized entry into posted airport operations areas, and that it was unconstitutionally vague because it lacked clear limits on postable areas. The Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that the ordinance was not preempted as it did not conflict with state law and the Legislature had not indicated an intent to occupy the field, and that the ordinance was not vague because persons of common intelligence could understand its prohibition on entering posted areas and it was constitutionally applied to the petitioner's conduct in a clearly restricted zone.
criminal law
People v. Ruiz
California Court of Appeal · 1992-02-25 · cited 4×
In People v. Ruiz, the defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for sale, with an allegation that the amount exceeded 100 pounds triggering a 15-year sentencing enhancement under Health and Safety Code section 11370.4. The trial court accepted the defendant's guilty plea and imposed a sentence of four years plus a five-year enhancement, exercising discretion under subdivision (e) to reduce the enhancement despite the weight exceeding 100 pounds. The People appealed the sentence as unlawful. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the statute's graduated enhancements based on specific weight thresholds are not interchangeable, and the court may only impose the full applicable enhancement or strike it entirely.
criminal law
People v. Gomez
California Court of Appeal · 1992-01-14 · cited 17×
The case involved defendant Daniel Gomez, who was convicted by jury of false imprisonment under Penal Code section 210.5, grand theft vehicle, robbery, and kidnapping for robbery after abducting a woman from her car, robbing her of jewelry and money, tying her to a fence, and stealing her vehicle. The Court of Appeal reversed the convictions under sections 210.5 and 487h(a), remanding with directions to dismiss those charges, to stay the robbery sentence, and to award one additional day of custody credit, while affirming the kidnapping conviction. The core reasoning addressed the statutory parameters of section 210.5, enacted in 1987, determining based on the facts and legislative history that the defendant's conduct did not fall within the offense of false imprisonment for protection from arrest.
criminal lawprocedure
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal · 1991-09-27 · cited 11×
The case involved passengers who sued Carnival Cruise Lines for negligence after sustaining injuries during a seven-day cruise from Los Angeles to Mexico on the M/V Tropicale, alleging failures such as inadequate storm warnings, safety equipment, and vessel maintenance. Carnival moved to dismiss or stay the California actions based on a forum-selection clause in the tickets requiring that all disputes be litigated exclusively in Florida courts. The appellate court granted writs directing the trial court to vacate its denial of the motions and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether each plaintiff received sufficient notice of the clause before entering the contract. The court reasoned that enforceability turns on the presence of such notice, which is required for mutual consent to the contractual term under California law; absent notice, the clause would not bind the plaintiff.
procedure