Mildred L. Lillie

The case involved tenants suing the owner and developers of an apartment complex for health issues caused by toxic mold from construction defects, seeking discovery of raw data, test results, and documents generated during a mediation in a prior lawsuit between the owner and developers to which the tenants were not parties. The trial court denied the discovery requests, ruling that the mediation privilege under Evidence Code sections 1119 and 1120 protected all the materials. The Court of Appeal concluded that the privilege does not shield factual, non-derivative evidentiary materials such as raw data, while providing only qualified protection for compilations or analyses prepared specifically for mediation, and directed the trial court to reconsider the requests accordingly.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Los Angeles police officer Darryl Brown appealing the denial of his writ of mandate petition after the department downgraded his pay grade from Police Officer III to II, citing prior incidents including a 1998 detention that later resulted in his exoneration by a Board of Rights. Brown argued he held a property interest in the advanced pay grade, that he had exhausted or was excused from administrative remedies, and that the department's appeal procedures failed to provide due process. The court concluded that Brown possessed a property interest in the pay grade, his challenge was timely, and the procedures under Administrative Order No. 15 violated due process by allowing the chief of police to review his own decisions without neutral safeguards or meaningful opportunity for review. Core reasoning centered on constitutional requirements for impartial adjudication to minimize erroneous deprivation of protected interests and the advisory, non-reviewable nature of the appeal process under the MOU.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned Gary Sizemore's conviction for soliciting Mark Tatum and others to murder his former wife Judith Sizemore following contentious divorce proceedings that included allegations of domestic violence. On appeal, Sizemore challenged the admission of evidence of prior domestic violence incidents, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the solicitation conviction, and the propriety of jury instructions regarding propensity evidence under CALJIC No. 2.50.02. The Court of Appeal examined the application of Evidence Code provisions allowing prior acts of domestic violence to prove propensity, the required standard of proof for such evidence, and whether the instructions adequately prevented convictions based solely on propensity without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The opinion addressed splits in authority on the due process implications of the instructions and noted that propensity evidence remains circumstantial even when admitted.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Michael Wozniak suing defendant Gregory Lucutz for personal injuries and property damage from a 1998 automobile accident, initially filed in municipal court as a limited civil case with a clause remitting any judgment exceeding jurisdictional limits. After unification of the courts, a jury awarded over $58,000; the trial judge then granted an oral motion to amend the complaint, declared a mistrial, and ordered reclassification to unlimited jurisdiction, but a later judge granted the defendant's motion to enter judgment for $25,000 based on the original pleadings. The appellate court affirmed the $25,000 judgment, holding that the mistrial and transfer orders were improper because they rested on misunderstandings of court unification effects and the binding nature of the remission clause in the complaint, and that the case remained subject to limited-jurisdiction rules. The court rejected collateral challenges to the orders and noted the absence of a trial transcript to support claims that excess damages had been properly litigated.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose from plaintiffs' claims that Massey Chevrolet used deceptive tactics during negotiations to induce them to sign a 60-month vehicle lease instead of a short-term financed purchase, resulting in higher total costs, in alleged violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, common-law fraud, and unfair competition laws. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the parol evidence rule barred plaintiffs from introducing evidence of prior oral representations and negotiations to contradict the terms of the signed lease agreement. The appellate court analyzed whether an exception to the parol evidence rule for fraud in the inducement applied, reviewing the lease's integration clause and the nature of the alleged misrepresentations about payment terms, capitalized costs, and financing options.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a minor, Robert H., who admitted to being a minor in illegal possession of a firearm after an assault allegation was dismissed in a case settlement, leading to a wardship order and a disposition placing him in the Camp Community Placement program. The minor appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in choosing camp over home probation, imposing drug and alcohol testing conditions, and failing to make the required finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 for removing him from parental custody. The court affirmed the choice of camp placement and most aspects of the disposition, finding no abuse of discretion given the seriousness of the offense involving a firearm and the need for community protection and counseling. However, it reversed and remanded on the grounds that the court had not properly imposed specific conditions of supervision under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730 or made the formal section 726 finding. The matter was sent back for the court to address those procedural requirements while considering any objections to supervision conditions.

criminal lawfamily lawguns

Tradewinds Escrow, Inc. sued its insurer Truck Insurance Exchange for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after Truck refused to defend or indemnify Tradewinds in a third-party lawsuit filed by a homebuyer whose escrow failed to close. The underlying suit alleged that Tradewinds and its president willfully mishandled the escrow, refused to return a deposit, and engaged in related misconduct including defamation and harassment. Truck denied coverage under a professional-services exclusion in the commercial general liability policy that barred claims arising from escrow-agent activities. The trial court granted Truck summary judgment, finding no duty to defend because the claims fell squarely within the exclusion, the pre-tender defense costs were incurred voluntarily, and no other policy provisions applied. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the exclusion precluded coverage and that Tradewinds therefore had no right to recover defense or settlement costs from Truck.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a class action lawsuit by Raymond Balikov against Southern California Gas Company alleging breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and other claims based on the Gas Company's collection of a Los Angeles City User Tax that improperly included a 10 percent charge on the State Regulatory Fee and CARE Fund Surcharge, which the plaintiff claimed were not authorized by Los Angeles Municipal Code section 21.1.5. The trial court sustained the Gas Company's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that Public Utilities Code section 799, subdivision (a)(4) bars naming a utility as a defendant in an action seeking to enjoin or recover taxes that the utility collects and remits on behalf of a local government. The court reasoned that the complaint, regardless of its characterization, sought relief related to tax collection by the utility, placing it squarely within the statutory prohibition, and that the plaintiff failed to show any defect could be cured by amendment.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a class action brought by Allstate insurance policyholders against the company over allegedly wrongful denial or underpayment of claims for damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, based on the use of biased engineering reports and improper application of the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court certified a settlement class and approved a $60 million settlement that provided for payment of up to 100 percent of policy benefits. Appellants, who were not named class representatives and who mostly opted out of the class without intervening, appealed on grounds that the class was improperly certified and the settlement was unfair. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, ruling that only parties to the action have standing to appeal a class settlement and that opting out or failing to intervene precludes such an appeal.

procedure

The case involved a surety company, International Fidelity Insurance Company, appealing the denial of its motion to set aside a summary judgment entered on a forfeited $50,000 bail bond after the defendant failed to appear in court. The core dispute was whether the 185-day period under Penal Code sections 1305 and 1306 for seeking relief from forfeiture was properly extended when the 185th day fell on a Saturday holiday followed by additional court holidays, allowing a timely request for a 90-day tolling on February 16, 1999, which would have made the May 7, 1999, summary judgment premature and void. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Code of Civil Procedure section 12a applied to extend the deadline to the next business day, rendering the February 16 tolling order valid and the summary judgment entered during the extension period invalid. The court emphasized strict construction of bail forfeiture statutes in favor of sureties and that failure to follow jurisdictional timing rules renders the judgment void. The matter was remanded with directions to set aside the May 7 summary judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

In Fraizer v. Velkura, the plaintiff grandmother appealed a summary judgment ruling that she lacked standing to sue a physician for the wrongful death and medical negligence of her granddaughter, who had a congenital disorder and died from an infection shortly before the finalization of adoption proceedings. The child's birth parents' rights had been terminated by court order, leaving the grandmother as legal guardian and prospective adoptive parent. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the termination order did not sever the grandmother-grandchild legal relationship and that the grandmother qualified as a proper plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 because she would be entitled to the decedent's estate by intestate succession under Probate Code section 6402 as a surviving grandparent in the absence of parents or closer heirs.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved three daughters suing three doctors for the wrongful death of their mother and negligent infliction of emotional distress after complications during a port-a-cath insertion procedure for chemotherapy treatment of her ovarian cancer led to severe bleeding, multiple health issues, delayed chemotherapy, and ultimately her death. The trial court granted summary adjudication to the defendants, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that triable issues of fact existed on both claims. The court reasoned that evidence raised factual questions about whether the doctors' negligence in the procedure and follow-up caused the mother's death through complications and reduced chemotherapy effectiveness, rather than solely her pre-existing cancer, and that the daughters' observations of her condition satisfied the requirements for bystander emotional distress recovery.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant Thomason, who was convicted of three felony counts of animal cruelty under Penal Code section 597(a) for producing and distributing 'crush videos' in which rats, mice, and baby mice were tortured and killed under the heel of a shoe for commercial profit. The trial court found him guilty based on preliminary hearing testimony and a seized videotape, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. The court held that the statute applies to rodents as 'living animals' and 'dumb creatures,' rejecting the argument that they are exempt under section 599c as dangerous to property, since the animals here were bred for domestic use and the acts involved malicious torture rather than pest control. It also ruled that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the statute as vague based on hypothetical applications to others using traps or poison for extermination.

criminal law

Alpha Therapeutic Corporation, a for-profit company processing and selling human blood products, sued the California Franchise Tax Board seeking a refund of over $950,000 in franchise taxes paid for four fiscal years, arguing that Revenue and Taxation Code section 33 exempted it because the tax was measured by net income from its blood business. The trial court granted summary judgment to the FTB, and the Court of Appeal affirmed after de novo review. The court held that the franchise tax is imposed on the privilege of doing business in California rather than on the blood products themselves, and that statutes granting tax exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, so section 33 did not apply.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a 1998 ballot measure in Sierra Madre that removed 29 properties from the city's Register of Historic Landmarks, which the City had placed on the ballot after repealing its prior historic preservation ordinance. Plaintiffs Friends of Sierra Madre challenged the measure, arguing it violated Elections Code section 9280 by providing inadequate ballot information and also failed to comply with CEQA's environmental review requirements. The court granted a writ setting aside the election due to the Elections Code violation but denied relief on the CEQA claim, holding that the submittal of the proposal to voters did not automatically exempt it from CEQA when the City had acted in a discretionary rather than purely ministerial capacity. The core reasoning focused on distinguishing Stein v. City of Santa Monica from later cases and emphasizing that CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(3) applies only to ministerial submissions to a vote.

electionsenvironment

Plaintiffs James and Melissa Kroupa sued an automobile dealer, lease broker, and lessor for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violations of the Vehicle Leasing Act and federal Truth in Lending Act, alleging the capitalized cost of a leased 1991 Ford pickup was improperly inflated above the sticker price through undisclosed fees and nonexistent add-ons. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment against the Kroupas on their claims and awarded the lessor damages plus over $415,000 in attorneys' fees and costs on its cross-complaint for breach of the lease. The Court of Appeal concluded that the lease violated section 2985.8 of the Vehicle Leasing Act, reversed the judgment, and remanded for a determination of the respondents' liability to the Kroupas under the Act's remedies provision, while also addressing issues concerning the trial court's statement of decision.

business & regulatory

The case involved a law firm suing its former clients to recover unpaid attorney fees under two common counts: one for services rendered and one for an account stated. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer and dismissed the complaint, finding the claims barred by the statute of limitations, and later denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration based on a newly discovered promissory note. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that the claims were subject to the two-year limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure section 339 because the firm failed to plead a valid written fee agreement or account stated under Business and Professions Code section 6148, and the note did not establish a definite agreed amount or qualify for the four-year period under section 337. The court reasoned that the last payment occurred in 1995, making the 1998 complaint untimely regardless of which note was considered, and found no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns nonresident defendants in New York who operated a passive World Wide Web site containing statements alleged to defame a plaintiff; defendants moved to quash service of summons in a California defamation action, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens. The trial court denied the motion, and defendants petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate that order. The court analyzed specific jurisdiction under the purposeful availment prong and the Calder effects test, concluding that defendants' contracts with out-of-state providers to host a passive site accessible worldwide did not constitute targeting California or sufficient minimum contacts, even though the site could be viewed there and plaintiff claimed harm in the forum. It further noted the absence of evidence that plaintiff resided or conducted business principally in California or that defendants expressly aimed tortious conduct at the state.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether the City of Burbank could require the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority to submit an airport expansion plan for city review and approval under Public Utilities Code section 21661.6 before acquiring adjacent property. The Authority had been created by a joint powers agreement among the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena to operate the airport, and it challenged the City's authority to enforce the statute against it. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Authority on the ground that the City had delegated its powers under the statute. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the joint powers agreement did not strip the City of its statutory review authority over the Authority's plans.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

In Armato v. Baden, plaintiff Ann Armato sued four physicians who worked part-time as independent contractors for Managed Care Orthopedic Medical Group after settling with the group and its employee physician assistant, Rick DeLeon, for negligent treatment of her fractured wrist. She alleged the doctors were liable under theories including ostensible partnership, apparent authority, negligent supervision, and failure to disclose DeLeon's status, claiming their names and association with the group led her to believe DeLeon was a physician. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that the doctors had no ownership interest in or control over Managed Care, did not supervise DeLeon or treat the plaintiff, and created no special relationship or partnership by estoppel that would impose vicarious liability for the employee's torts, even assuming their names appeared on office materials.

torts & liabilityprocedure