Jeffrey W. Johnson

The case involved a minor student, C.A., who sued a public high school, its district, and a guidance counselor for alleged sexual harassment, abuse, and molestation by the counselor, asserting claims including negligence, negligent supervision and hiring, sexual battery, assault, and sexual harassment. The trial court sustained the school district's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the claims against the district, ruling that the counselor's misconduct fell outside the scope of employment and that no statute authorized direct or vicarious liability against the public entity for the alleged acts. On appeal, the court examined Government Code sections 815 and 815.2, determining that a public entity is generally not liable for employee torts absent a statute, but could face vicarious liability for an administrator's negligent hiring, supervision, or retention if those failures occurred within the scope of the administrator's duties, even though the underlying sexual misconduct did not. The opinion emphasized that liability would attach to the district's own negligence in failing to protect students from known risks, not to the counselor's intentional acts.

torts & liabilitycivil rightscriminal law

This case is a marital dissolution action in which the wife appealed the trial court's characterization of the husband's post-separation law firm partnership distributions as his separate property. The Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that a portion of the 2004 partnership distributions constituted community property subject to division. The court reasoned that compensation for services performed during the marriage accrues to the community even if the right to receive payment is not finally determined or distributed until after separation, drawing on precedent that focuses on when the benefit is earned rather than when it vests or is paid under the partnership agreement. The matter was remanded for redetermination of related support, reimbursement, and property division orders.

family lawproperty

The Antounians sued Louis Vuitton/Dior and their law firm for malicious prosecution after the manufacturers voluntarily dismissed them from a 2006 federal trademark counterfeiting lawsuit involving alleged sales of fake goods at the Antounians' Bijou Palace store in Santee Alley. The federal action had included erroneous investigative reports that misattributed counterfeiting activity to the Antounians' location, leading to Burberry's dismissal of claims and a later voluntary dismissal by Louis Vuitton/Dior conditioned on payment of the Antounians' attorney fees. The trial court granted the defendants' separate anti-SLAPP motions to strike the malicious prosecution complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. On appeal, the court reviewed the facts of the underlying litigation, including the denial of the Antounians' summary judgment motion and the extent to which probable cause existed despite the identified errors in the complaints.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dependency petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services after an 18-month-old child died in a car accident caused when her father drove her unsecured by any child safety restraint. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over the child's two surviving siblings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (f) and (j), but dismissed related allegations under subdivision (b). The Court of Appeal affirmed jurisdiction under subdivision (f), holding that the statute requires only that a parent's neglect caused the child's death and does not demand proof of criminal negligence. It also held that the juvenile court erred by dismissing the subdivision (b) allegations, which were a necessary predicate for the subdivision (j) findings, and ordered those allegations reinstated and sustained.

family law

This case concerned a mother's appeal from an order terminating her parental rights to her son under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 in a Los Angeles County juvenile dependency proceeding. The mother argued that notice was inadequate under the Indian Child Welfare Act because the children's paternal grandmother had mentioned possible Native American ancestry. The Court of Appeal affirmed the termination order. It held that the grandmother's statement—that she could not identify the tribe and had no living relatives with more information—was too vague, attenuated, and speculative to give the court any reason to believe the children might be Indian children, and therefore no further ICWA inquiry or notice was required.

family lawfederal power

The case was a wrongful death action brought by the family of William Saller, who died of mesothelioma after alleged exposure to asbestos-containing pipe insulation manufactured by Crown (via its acquisition of Mundet) at his workplace and to joint compound made by Bondex for home use. The trial court declined to instruct the jury on the consumer expectations test for design defect or on failure to warn, resulting in a defense verdict. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the consumer expectations test was appropriate because the ordinary knowledge of the product's characteristics could support an inference that it did not perform as safely as expected, and that the failure-to-warn instructions were also warranted on the record presented.

torts & liability

In Ellerbee v. County of Los Angeles, the plaintiff held a civil judgment against a debtor and alleged that the Los Angeles County Sheriff negligently delayed serving writs of execution on third parties making royalty and appearance payments to the debtor, causing the plaintiff to lose recovery of over $50,000. The trial court denied the County's motion for judgment on the pleadings, allowed the case to proceed to a jury trial that resulted in a damages award to the plaintiff, and imposed sanctions on the County and its counsel for failing to have a representative with settlement authority present at a court-ordered mediation. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and directed entry of judgment on the pleadings for the County, while affirming the sanctions order. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to state a viable cause of action against the County or Sheriff.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a nonprofit organization suing several chain restaurants for selling grilled chicken without warnings under California's Proposition 65 about the presence of a carcinogen formed during the grilling process. The restaurants filed a cross-complaint arguing that any such warnings were preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act because they would conflict with federal policies encouraging thorough cooking of poultry to prevent foodborne illness. The trial court granted summary judgment to the restaurants on preemption grounds, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the federal law did not preempt the state warnings. The core reasoning was that Proposition 65 includes a cooking provision allowing for adjusted risk standards when chemicals result from necessary cooking processes, and that appropriately worded warnings would not render poultry products misbranded or frustrate federal objectives under the PPIA.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In People v. Hall, the defendant was convicted of second degree murder and related charges after a high-speed police pursuit in which he drove a motor home under the influence, causing collisions that killed two people. Hall appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting blood-alcohol evidence over a chain-of-custody objection and by denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence about a potential witness. The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, holding that the blood sample was properly admitted because sufficient evidence established its integrity despite gaps in the chain of custody, and that the new evidence would not have changed the jury's verdict given the strength of the prosecution's case. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings on the evidentiary and post-trial motions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Abraham Khan, a former Los Angeles deputy city attorney who later became a superior court judge, seeking to compel the Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System (LACERS) to grant him concurrent retirement benefits under LACERS and the Judges' Retirement System (JRS) calculated at his higher judicial salary. Khan argued that reciprocity agreements between LACERS and the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), combined with statutory amendments in Assembly Bill 1099, extended such benefits from JRS through PERS to LACERS. The trial court granted his petition for writ of mandate, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the governing statutes and the City's ordinance require mutual contractual agreements for reciprocity that JRS does not provide to PERS members, and that the legislation did not create automatic reciprocity between LACERS and JRS. The court remanded with directions to enter judgment for LACERS.

labor & employment

Sergio Gutierrez and Hector Salazar filed a class action lawsuit against California Commerce Club, Inc., alleging that the club unlawfully denied meal and rest breaks to hourly nonunion employees in violation of Labor Code provisions, PAGA, and the UCL. The trial court sustained the club's demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege the existence of a class, and dismissed the representative claims. The Court of Appeal reversed the ruling, holding that in the vast majority of wage and hour disputes, class suitability should not be determined at the demurrer stage. The court reasoned that the operative complaint's allegations were sufficient to provide notice of the claims and that issues of class ascertainability and commonality are better resolved after the pleading stage, citing precedents where such determinations occurred post-demurrer.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Gutierrez v. California Commerce Club, Inc., employees filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant club had a policy of denying meal and rest breaks to hourly non-union employees in violation of Labor Code provisions and related wage orders, and sought remedies including penalties under PAGA and the UCL. The trial court sustained the club's demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged the existence of a class, and dismissed the representative claims. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that in the vast majority of wage and hour disputes, the suitability of a case for class treatment should not be resolved at the demurrer stage but after further proceedings. The court reasoned that the allegations in the operative complaint were sufficient to provide notice of the claims and that prior cases demonstrate class issues in such disputes are typically addressed post-pleading.

labor & employmentprocedure

Steinman sued FMA for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud arising from investment advice and services, leading to a $6.5 million settlement agreement that included an early-payment discount and a promissory note. After the trial court dismissed the action pursuant to stipulation while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, FMA paid the remaining balance early under protest to obtain the discount and then moved to recover an alleged overpayment. The trial court granted the motion, ordered Steinman to repay the overpayment, and awarded FMA attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest. On appeal, the court reversed the repayment order and vacated the fee award, holding that FMA’s payment was voluntary and that the record did not support recovery of the claimed overpayment under the settlement terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Ian M. King, a Los Angeles School Police Department officer, who stopped Nicole D. for an illegal U-turn late at night and then performed an invasive body search, including digital penetration, on a public sidewalk under the pretext of a sobriety test and weapons search. A jury convicted King on five counts of sexual assault, including sexual battery by restraint and unlawful genital penetration by a public official, and the trial court imposed a 20-year prison sentence. On appeal, King argued ineffective assistance of counsel, improper limits on cross-examination and jury instructions, insufficient evidence of lack of consent, and an unconstitutional sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and sentence in full, rejecting the challenges to the evidence of duress, procedural rulings, and sentencing decisions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge by Erica Landmann-Johnsey to the City of Glendora's practice of charging a $2,000 fee for filing an administrative appeal to the city council of a planning commission decision regarding a development project, where the appeal was based on CEQA grounds. The plaintiff alleged that this fee violated the California Environmental Quality Act. The trial court sustained the city's demurrer without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that CEQA does not prohibit agencies from charging their customary fees for administrative appeals, even when based on environmental grounds, as the statute should not be interpreted to impose requirements beyond its explicit language pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.1.

environmentprocedure

The case was a putative class action brought by a former route sales representative against his employer, alleging uniform policies that misclassified employees as exempt to avoid overtime pay, failed to provide or compensate for required meal and rest breaks, and issued non-compliant pay stubs, in violation of California labor laws. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification on grounds including lack of typicality, predominance of common issues, and adequacy of the representative, and also denied a motion to amend the complaint to substitute new class representatives. The appellate court reversed the denial of class certification except as to the adequacy finding, reversed the denial of the motion to amend, and directed the trial court to certify the proposed subclasses upon approval of a new representative and to allow filing of the amended complaint, because the trial court had relied on improper criteria in assessing predominance of common issues.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory