Donald Bruce King

The case involved a dispute over unpaid sales commissions claimed by a former employee of American Software after her voluntary resignation. The trial court awarded the commissions, ruling that the employment contract's provision forfeiting commissions 30 days after voluntary termination was unconscionable. The appellate court reversed, holding that the provision was enforceable because the contract resulted from arm's-length negotiations between parties of comparable bargaining power, with no unclear or hidden terms, and reflected prevailing industry practices.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Brian Dennis Shannon's conviction for second degree murder after fatally shooting his girlfriend in what he claimed was an accident during an argument. Shannon appealed on grounds that the standard jury instruction for voluntary manslaughter (CALJIC No. 8.40) was flawed, as it required proof of intent to kill and thus prevented the jury from reducing a killing committed with only implied malice to manslaughter based on heat of passion or sudden quarrel. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, concluding it was bound by California Supreme Court precedent that voluntary manslaughter is a specific intent crime requiring intent to kill. The court acknowledged potential inconsistencies in the rule but stated it lacked authority to depart from that precedent.

criminal law

The case involved the City of Oakland suing Vemolia McCullough in a drug house abatement action under Health and Safety Code sections 11570 et seq., alleging drug offenses at her property; the trial court entered judgment closing the property for one year and imposing a $1,000 civil penalty, then awarded the city $100,005.48 in postjudgment costs and attorney fees. McCullough appealed only the costs order, arguing that salaries and overhead expenses of city attorneys, legal assistants, and police officers were not recoverable. The Court of Appeal held that Civil Code section 3496 authorizes awards of costs of investigation and reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party, which includes allocable salaries plus overhead for government employees, as the statute lacks limiting language like "actually incurred" and parallels market-rate fee recoveries in other contexts. The court reduced the award by $4,893.24 to exclude undocumented amounts but affirmed it as modified and directed the parties to bear their own appellate fees and costs.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit filed by Marie Bafus, an experienced figure skater, against another skater, Mary Staten, and related parties after Bafus was cut on the arm by Staten's skate blade during a collision in a group practice session. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing that primary assumption of risk barred recovery because the injury resulted from an inherent risk of figure skating. The trial court denied the motion, finding a triable issue based on expert testimony that such a collision was not inherent. The appellate court granted a writ of mandate, holding that being cut by another skater's blade is an inherent risk of the sport under Knight v. Jewett, so defendants owed no duty of care, and summary judgment should have been granted.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a political advocacy organization, seeking a declaration that California's minimum wage laws were unconstitutional as applied to it because they would force ACORN to hire fewer workers and reduce the effectiveness of its advocates. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment for the defense. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the laws are constitutional as applied because the state's compelling interest in ensuring wages adequate to maintain a decent standard of living justifies any incidental impact on First Amendment freedoms, and this justification applies to as-applied challenges as well as facial ones. ACORN did not demonstrate any basis for amending its complaint.

labor & employmentfree speech

In People v. Pierce, the defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of selling methamphetamine, and the trial judge imposed upper terms totaling five years in prison by adopting the probation report's aggravating and mitigating factors without further explanation. The Court of Appeal held that this violated the requirement under the California Rules of Court to orally state on the record the reasons for selecting the upper terms, including a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting circumstances in aggravation. Although such errors are often harmless, the court found reversal necessary here because the same judge had repeatedly failed to comply with sentencing rules in prior cases despite multiple appellate warnings. The judgment was therefore reversed with directions to assign the case to a different judge for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the interpretation of a will executed by John R. Hermon during his marriage to Suzanne Hermon, which was later dissolved before his death. The will included bequests to “my children and my spouse’s children” and “my issue and my spouse’s issue” in the event his spouse predeceased him. The court decided that these provisions failed as to the former spouse's children and issue, reversing the trial court's ruling that they should share in the estate. The core reasoning was that without an expression of intent otherwise, such bequests are presumed not to survive marital dissolution, consistent with the operation of Probate Code section 6122 which revokes dispositions to the former spouse.

family lawproperty

In Vann v. Travelers Companies, an auto body shop owner sued his liability insurer for a declaration that it had a duty to defend him in a third-party lawsuit alleging environmental contamination of leased property from improper handling and disposal of hazardous substances like oils and solvents over many years. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the pollution exclusion clause barred coverage because the releases were not 'sudden and accidental' given their prolonged duration. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the underlying claims potentially fell within policy coverage, which under California precedent from the Montrose cases required the insurer to provide a defense unless it could show no possibility of coverage based on undisputed facts.

environmentbusiness & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Evans v. Unkow, a former member of a sanitary district board sued ten individuals for defamation after they circulated a recall petition citing various alleged financial and administrative misdeeds; the defendants responded with a special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16). The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court held that supporting declarations on an anti-SLAPP motion may not contain averments made only on information and belief, and that the plaintiff's opposing declaration failed to supply competent, admissible evidence establishing a probability he could prevail on his defamation claim, particularly with respect to the element of constitutional malice. Because the statute requires the plaintiff to demonstrate such a probability through pleadings and admissible affidavits, the court concluded dismissal was required.

free speechprocedure

The case arose after the 1992 shooting death of Jerrold Hall by a BART police officer, prompting his parents to sue BART for wrongful death and for violations of the Bane Act (Civ. Code § 52.1), an anti-hate-crime statute, alleging interference with their son's rights to be free from unreasonable seizure and racial discrimination as well as their own parental rights. BART demurred to the three Bane Act claims, arguing that two were not reflected in the parents' government tort claim (which sought only wrongful-death damages) and that the parents lacked standing for the third because the statute creates a personal cause of action for the direct victim. The court held that the first two Bane Act causes of action were barred by the limited scope of the government claim and that the third failed for lack of standing, because the Bane Act is not a wrongful-death provision and does not authorize derivative liability for family members not themselves subjected to threats or violence. The two wrongful-death claims were unaffected and the matter was returned to the trial court with directions to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend as to the Bane Act claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In Hunter v. Pacific Mechanical Corp., the plaintiff sued multiple defendants including PMC, an asbestos contractor, for negligence and related tort claims arising from alleged occupational exposure to asbestos at various jobsites between 1950 and 1992, claiming it caused his pleural disease. The trial court granted PMC's motion for summary judgment after discovery, finding no evidence linking PMC's activities to Hunter's exposure. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the 1993 amendments to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c adopted a federal-style burden-shifting framework, allowing a defendant to meet its initial burden by pointing to an absence of evidence on an essential element such as causation; once shifted, the plaintiff must produce specific facts showing a triable issue rather than relying on pleadings or speculation about possible overlapping presence at jobsites. The court reasoned that Hunter's evidence of mere potential overlap in work locations was insufficient to establish that PMC's asbestos-related activities were a substantial factor in his injuries.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a client suing multiple law firms and an attorney for legal malpractice, alleging breaches of professional duty including drafting an invalid ballot initiative, providing inadequate representation in related litigation, and charging excessive or unconscionable fees totaling around a quarter million dollars. The court granted summary judgment to two of the firms on statute of limitations grounds, holding that claims of excessive fees fall under the one-year limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 for attorney malpractice or misconduct. The statute begins to run when the client knows or should know the facts constituting the alleged overcharge or other wrongful acts, not upon actual payment of the fees, and was not tolled here because the client was aware of the underlying judgment invalidating the initiative more than a year before filing suit. The court rejected arguments that fee-related claims should be treated differently or that the limitations period could be extended until the client decided to pay or discovered the excessiveness after payment.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners over the scope of a nonexclusive easement, 52 feet wide, granted for road and utility purposes across the servient tenement to provide access to the dominant tenement. The dominant owner sought to enjoin the servient owner's winery operations, including placement of grapevines and water tanks within the easement boundaries, while the servient owner cross-complained about unauthorized paving by the dominant owner. The trial court ruled that the easement did not entitle the dominant owner to exclusive use of the full width but only to reasonable ingress and egress, allowing the servient owner to make improvements that did not unreasonably interfere. On appeal, the court affirmed this interpretation of the easement deed, along with related orders requiring removal of the paving and correction of a drainage issue, based on the principle that a nonexclusive easement of specified width does not confer rights to every portion of the described area.

property

The case arose after a judicial arbitrator ruled in favor of defendants Kane and Abbott on plaintiffs Calderon's defamation, privacy, and emotional distress claims stemming from a letter in a real estate transaction; Calderon requested a trial de novo but then voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to vacate the dismissal and entered judgment on the arbitration award. The Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.20 and precedent such as Herbert Hawkins Realtors v. Milheiser, a voluntary dismissal after requesting a trial de novo repudiates the request for de novo proceedings and restores the parties to their pre-request position, thereby finalizing the award. The court distinguished contrary authority, rejected unsupported constitutional challenges, and concluded that allowing the dismissal to stand would improperly nullify the arbitration process.

procedure

The case involved the County of Ventura and its district attorney seeking to compel the State Bar of California to allow the district attorney to object on behalf of his employees to the State Bar's calculation of the voluntary 'Hudson fee' reduction in compulsory bar dues, which covers political or ideological activities. The superior court dismissed the action for lack of standing, finding no actual or potential injury. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the county and district attorney have standing because a public agency's payment of the voluntary portion of employees' bar dues would constitute waste of public funds, creating potential liability for the payers under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. The core reasoning was that such payments by a government entity would be a wholly inappropriate encroachment into political or ideological contributions, unlike ordinary employment benefits, and thus qualify as 'totally unnecessary' or useless public expenditures.

procedurelabor & employment

The case involved a father seeking review of a juvenile court's decision to terminate reunification services for his two dependent children and set a permanency planning hearing. The court determined that the father had been offered adequate reunification services, including parenting classes and counseling for domestic violence and substance abuse, but failed to comply due to his denial of the problems. Substantial evidence supported the findings that returning the children would pose a risk and that no substantial probability of reunification existed within the required timeframe, leading the court to deny the petition.

family lawprocedure

In People v. Reed, a defendant convicted of robbery in 1994, with a prior 1992 residential burglary conviction, challenged the application of California's Three Strikes law to double his sentence on the ground that his first strike predated the law's enactment. The court held that the Three Strikes law applies to prior felony convictions that occurred before its passage and affirmed the judgment imposing a doubled term. The decision interpreted the statutory phrase requiring the strike determination to be made 'upon' the date of the prior conviction as meaning 'with reference to' that date rather than requiring the determination to occur at the time of the prior offense. The court reasoned that a contrary reading would render meaningless the law's references to certain repealed felonies that necessarily predated enactment, would undermine the legislative intent to impose greater punishment on recidivists, and would create an anomalous inconsistency with the nearly identical initiative version of the law that expressly counts pre-1994 convictions as strikes.

criminal law

The case involved Yayehyerade Bekele's convictions for armed robbery of coworker Paco Fernandez, assault with a firearm on Fernandez, and related offenses after Bekele was caught burglarizing Robert Jump's parked truck and later pointed a gun at Fernandez while fleeing with stolen items. The court affirmed the robbery conviction, finding substantial evidence that Fernandez had implied authority from the truck owner Jump to intervene in the theft, giving him constructive possession of the property under robbery law. However, the court struck the assault with a firearm conviction due to lack of evidence that the gun was loaded or that Bekele threatened to use it as a bludgeon, which was required to prove an assault under the circumstances. The judgment was modified accordingly and otherwise affirmed.

criminal law

This case involved the County of Alameda seeking to establish child support obligations and recover welfare arrears from Richard Moore after his former spouse began receiving public assistance, despite a prior dissolution judgment providing for joint custody. The trial court ordered Moore to pay monthly child support and arrears based on unsworn statements by the district attorney regarding income, custody arrangements, and welfare payments. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the disputed factual allegations of separation, ability to pay, and receipt of assistance. The court reasoned that while informal procedures are permitted in family law matters to expedite proceedings, decisions on contested facts must rely on admissible evidence such as sworn declarations, offers of proof, or testimony, rather than attorneys' statements, which do not qualify as evidence under the Evidence Code.

family lawprocedure

In Kidwell v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, a state traffic officer injured her thumb at home while practicing the standing long jump for her employer's mandatory annual physical performance program fitness test and sought workers' compensation benefits after the employer denied the claim on grounds that the activity was off-duty and not part of her approved fitness plan. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board upheld the denial. The court annulled that decision, concluding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the employee's belief that practicing was required as a condition of employment was objectively reasonable, based on the test's job-related purpose, consequences for failure such as loss of salary differentials and promotion eligibility, and advice from colleagues to practice the protocol.

labor & employment