Robert Kingsley

In this marital dissolution case, the wife appealed the denial of her motion to vacate a judgment that incorporated a settlement agreement she signed during a custody dispute. The agreement awarded her sole physical custody of the children but required her to relinquish nearly all community property claims, while including a provision under which the husband would forfeit a $100,000 note if he contested custody or support. The Court of Appeal reversed the denial, holding that the trial court failed to determine whether the wife's consent was coerced by duress and that the forfeiture clause risked improperly limiting judicial oversight of child welfare matters, consistent with precedents voiding agreements that divest courts of jurisdiction over custody. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the coercion claim.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case is an appeal from a trial court award of $536,000 in attorneys' fees to plaintiffs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 after a class action challenging the prosecution and treatment of public inebriates under Penal Code section 647(f) in Los Angeles. The litigation produced court-ordered changes to incarceration and medical screening procedures that became final after affirmance by the California Supreme Court. The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings that the case conferred a significant benefit on a large class of persons and that equal apportionment of fee liability between the City and County was proper. It reversed and remanded, however, for the trial court to determine in its discretion whether time spent on unsuccessful theories was reasonably incurred and whether compensation for volunteered paralegal hours was appropriate based on market value.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, the sellers of a tavern sought to recover from California's Real Estate Education, Research and Recovery Fund after a licensed broker mishandled an escrow, made misrepresentations, converted funds, and allowed the buyer to take possession without paying the purchase price, resulting in the loss of the business assets and an outstanding note. The trial court awarded the maximum $10,000 plus costs, but the Court of Appeal reversed. The appellate court held that Business and Professions Code section 10472 required the applicants to prove diligent pursuit of remedies against all potentially liable parties, including the broker's individual officers and employees, whose possible liability for negligent misrepresentation was supported by circumstantial evidence; the applicants' failure to make any effort to sue, depose, or investigate those individuals meant they had not met their burden of showing due diligence.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The Cayleys sued their neighbors, the Nunns, for slander after the Nunns allegedly made false statements about illegal wiretapping while circulating a petition to support their application for a height variance before the city council. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Nunns on the ground that the statements were absolutely privileged, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that Civil Code section 47 provides an absolute privilege for publications made in legislative or judicial proceedings or in the course of other official proceedings authorized by law, and that this protection extends to preparatory communications such as petition circulation when they have a logical connection to the proceeding and are made to achieve its objects.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved real estate brokers suing the promoters and managers of a limited partnership for breach of contract and fraud after the brokers located a buyer for an apartment building but received a reduced commission in the form of a note, while the defendants took a separate and larger commission for themselves without disclosure. The jury returned a verdict splitting the total commissions between the parties, but the trial court granted a new trial limited to damages based on perceived attorney misconduct during closing arguments. On appeal, the court reversed the new-trial order and affirmed the judgment, reasoning that sustained objections were roughly equal on both sides and that a biblical reference in the plaintiffs' closing argument did not improperly appeal to the jury's passions.

propertybusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over the termination of a commercial sublease for retail space after the buyer of the underlying property, Northridge Hospital Foundation (N.H.F.), arranged to end the master lease with the original tenant, W.T. Grant & Co. Pic 'N' Save (P.N.S.), the sublessee, claimed it retained rights to extend the sublease under its terms and sought declaratory relief, damages, and an opportunity to amend its cross-complaint to add a tort claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. The trial court ruled for N.H.F. after a bifurcated trial, holding that a clause in the sublease providing for simultaneous termination upon any end to the master lease was enforceable under its plain language, that N.H.F. had no duty to extend the overlease, and that P.N.S.'s proposed amendment was properly denied. On appeal, the court affirmed, interpreting the contract language as requiring termination of the sublease and rejecting arguments based on laches, statutes of limitations, and waiver under the parties' status quo agreement. The decision rested on principles of contract interpretation where extrinsic evidence was limited and on procedural rules governing amendments to pleadings.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Winterburn v. City of Pomona, the parents of an 11-year-old boy sued the city for wrongful death after he was killed by falling rocks and debris in a natural cave on a city-owned greenbelt. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city under Government Code section 831.2, which immunizes public entities from liability for injuries caused by natural conditions on unimproved public property, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that the greenbelt qualified as unimproved public property intended for public use, the statute's legislative history supported immunity for such areas including urban parks and beaches, and the city had not voluntarily assumed a duty to restrict access to the cave. The court rejected arguments that the general public entity liability provisions in section 835 override the specific immunity or that triable issues of fact existed.

torts & liabilityproperty

In this appeal from a trial court order on attorney's fees, the case arose from long-running litigation in which plaintiff Sternwest sued over work related to gold it owned, initially naming Ash and others as partners potentially liable with the main defendant; Ash was ultimately dismissed and found entitled to fees under Civil Code section 1717. The trial court awarded a lodestar amount based on $120 hourly rates but refused to enhance it for case difficulty or to award interest on the fees due to calculation challenges and a mistaken belief that enhancements were limited to private attorney general actions. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that trial courts have discretion to enhance lodestar fees in such cases and must calculate and award interest from the date of the fee claim using simple arithmetic, then review the total for reasonableness under section 1717 before entering judgment.

procedure

In this dependency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, the mother sought to terminate the father's joint custody of their four-year-old daughter based on allegations of sexual molestation following their divorce. The juvenile court sustained the petition, terminated joint custody, and denied visitation until the father completed counseling. On appeal, the father argued he received ineffective assistance from his privately retained counsel, who failed to obtain key psychiatric records, produce expert witnesses, or conduct meaningful examinations, and was substituted by unfamiliar attorneys at critical points. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that where a due process right to counsel attaches due to the risk of losing custody, parents are entitled to effective assistance of counsel regardless of whether counsel is appointed or retained, as indigency does not expand constitutional protections and ineffective representation is not a voluntary choice.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Beverly Glen Music, Inc., which had signed singer Anita Baker to a recording contract but lost her to a better offer from Warner Communications, Inc. After failing to obtain an injunction directly against Baker due to California Civil Code restrictions on enforcing personal service contracts, Beverly Glen sued Warner for inducing the breach and sought a preliminary injunction to bar Warner from employing Baker. The trial court denied the injunction, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that the requested relief would indirectly achieve the same prohibited result as enjoining Baker herself—depriving her of her livelihood to pressure her into returning to Beverly Glen—contrary to the legislative limits in Civil Code section 3423 and the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude, while noting that damages against Warner provided an adequate alternative remedy.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who bought a house from defendant Reitz, a licensed real estate broker and the property owner, without being informed that the foundation was so defective the house could not be legally or safely occupied. After discovering the issue and having to demolish and rebuild, the plaintiffs sued Reitz for fraud and related claims based on his alleged misrepresentations and concealment of the defects. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case, but the appellate court reversed as to the fraud-based causes of action. The court held that Reitz, by acting as a broker in the sale, was subject to the disclosure duty under Easton v. Strassburger and that the complaint's allegations of intentional misrepresentation and concealment adequately stated claims for fraud under Herzog v. Capital Co., distinguishing dicta from Robinson v. Murphy.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved a prosecution appeal from a superior court order under Penal Code section 995 that dismissed certain murder and kidnapping charges against defendant Hoban and struck special circumstance allegations (torture and kidnapping in the course of murder) against both defendants Hoban and Zimmer in a case charging cocaine-related kidnappings and murders of three victims. The appellate court reversed the dismissals, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the magistrate's probable cause findings at the preliminary hearing. The core reasoning was that a reviewing court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the magistrate's, must draw every legitimate inference in favor of the information, and that circumstantial evidence—including similar modus operandi to a killing linked to Hoban, possession of the murder weapon, and knowledge of the crimes—raised a reasonable suspicion of the defendants' involvement. The court also rejected arguments that the People could not appeal the special circumstance dismissals or that double jeopardy barred further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a minor placed in foster care after being made a ward of the court in 1979 due to sexual abuse by her stepfather; she remained in the foster home through periodic reviews and opposed any return to her parents. The trial court terminated the dependency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364, finding no ongoing danger and ordering the minor returned home. The appellate court reversed, holding that section 361 controlled because the minor had been removed from the parental home and met its criteria for continued placement outside the home, including her unwillingness to return, and that applying section 364 would cause trauma inconsistent with juvenile court purposes.

family law

The case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree murder and robbery after a retrial on a felony-murder theory, following an earlier reversal of his initial convictions due to improper waiver of counsel. The court reversed the new convictions, holding that the prior jury's rejection of the robbery special circumstance allegation collaterally estopped the felony-murder finding, and that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise this bar despite objecting on other grounds to the felony-murder instructions. The court also ruled that double jeopardy barred any retrial on a premeditated murder theory because the trial court's refusal to instruct on that theory amounted to an implied acquittal. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit where plaintiff Paul Sharp, after recovering workers' compensation from his employer and settling with the property owner for $10,000, sued the equipment supplier Bragg Crane Service, Inc. for injuries sustained while setting up a drilling rig. The jury awarded $200,000 in damages, and the trial court addressed issues regarding credit for the prior settlement through jury instructions and interrogatories. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment after modifying it to correct an erroneous inclusion of pre-judgment interest, reducing the amount to $141,671.51 plus interest and costs, finding that the damages evidence was uncontradicted, no attorney misconduct occurred, and any issues regarding segregation of damages were waived.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved F&P Growers Association, an agricultural employer, which refused to resume bargaining with the certified United Farm Workers union after a long period of inactivity, citing a good-faith belief based on objective evidence that the union had lost majority employee support. The Agricultural Labor Relations Board ruled that this loss-of-majority defense, drawn from National Labor Relations Act precedent, does not apply under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, and it ordered a make-whole remedy for employees after the date of its Nish Noroian decision. F&P sought judicial review, arguing that section 1148 of the ALRA required following NLRA rules allowing employers to rebut the presumption of continuing union majority. The court upheld the Board's position, holding that unique features of California agricultural labor relations—such as the seasonal workforce, restrictions on elections, and legislative choices—made the NLRA precedent inapplicable and that only employees, not employers, may initiate challenges to union status. The court therefore affirmed the refusal-to-bargain violation and the corresponding remedy.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In People v. Jackson, the defendant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for sale after police found 113 pounds of marijuana in his apartment during a response to a burglary call. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to excuse a juror who, after deliberations began, disclosed in a note that his nephew had died from drug-related causes 12-14 years earlier and that he had not recalled this during voir dire questions about relevant background. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the nondisclosure was unintentional rather than misconduct, that the juror's statement of no bias was credible, and that no good cause existed under Penal Code sections 1089 and 1123 to excuse him. It rejected the defendant's reliance on contrary precedent and followed its own earlier decision emphasizing that forgetful nondisclosure alone does not create a presumption of prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the forfeiture of a $5,000 bail bond posted by Surety Insurance Company for defendant Dennis L. Justice, who failed to appear at a pretrial conference on August 8, 1983. The trial court continued the case without declaring forfeiture immediately but declared forfeiture after a second nonappearance on August 17, 1983, leading to summary judgment which the surety sought to vacate. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that under the 1969 amendment to Penal Code section 1305, the trial court retained jurisdiction to declare forfeiture later because the minutes indicated a possible excuse for the initial nonappearance. The court distinguished earlier precedent based on the pre-amendment statute and noted that the statutory change allowed courts to delay forfeiture when an excuse might exist to encourage production of the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former partner in an accounting firm suing to recover retirement benefits after resigning at age 53, asserting that the firm had a custom of approving early retirements with benefits payable at age 60 despite the formal plan requiring age 60 and 15 years of partnership. The trial court ruled against the plaintiff, finding neither such a custom nor any reliance on it. The appellate court reversed the judgment solely on the ground that the plaintiff was improperly denied a jury trial after an attorney from his counsel's office mistakenly waived it at a settlement conference; the motion to reinstate the jury demand should have been granted because the defendant showed no serious hardship from the short period of the waiver. The court further held that a subpoena duces tecum for records of other partners' retirements had been erroneously quashed, as the documents were relevant to the plaintiff's theory and properly sought from a party subject to the court's jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In People v. Allen, two defendants were convicted after a joint jury trial of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder arising from a home invasion shooting in which Gregory Ainsworth was killed and his wife Cheryl and cousin Taggra Barron were wounded; the sole disputed issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrators, which rested entirely on the victims' eyewitness identifications. On appeal, the defendants challenged the sufficiency of those identifications and certain firearm and great-bodily-injury enhancements. The court held that the identifications, though based on limited visibility and initially uncertain statements to police, were supported by substantial evidence including voice recognition, prior acquaintance, and consistent lineup selections, and therefore upheld the convictions. It further ruled that enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.7 could apply to attempted murder convictions and that resentencing on remand did not violate double jeopardy. The court modified the judgments, affirmed the convictions as modified, and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure