In this case, Danny Hare, serving an indeterminate sentence of 15 years to life for a 1980 second-degree murder conviction, had his 2009 grant of parole by the Board of Parole Hearings reversed by the Governor. The superior court granted Hare's habeas petition, ruling the Governor's reversal untimely and unsupported by some evidence of current dangerousness. On appeal by the warden, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a one-day delay in the Governor's review did not deprive him of authority or violate due process, and that the superior court's findings on the evidence were erroneous. The court emphasized that the constitutional liberty interest in parole requires only some evidence of dangerousness after individualized review, not strict adherence to timing that would strip jurisdiction.
Three union-represented construction workers sued their former employer, Total Western, Inc., on behalf of themselves and a putative class, alleging failure to provide required second meal periods under Labor Code section 512 and IWC wage order 16, and seeking premium wages under section 226.7 plus relief for unfair business practices. The superior court granted the employer's motion for summary adjudication on the premium-wage claim, relying on Bearden v. U.S. Borax to hold that the invalid exemption in wage order 16, section 10(E) barred liability under section 226.7 while denying summary adjudication on the unfair-practices claim. The Court of Appeal held that Bearden's prospective invalidation of the exemption does not prevent recovery of premium pay for missed meal periods under section 226.7, and directed the superior court to deny the motion for summary adjudication on the fifth cause of action.
The case involved the estate of Motion Graphix founder Richard Corrales, which sued the buyer Get Flipped, its founder Raleigh Souther, and sought to add the company's former corporate counsel Katten Muchin as defendants, alleging claims such as conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conspiracy arising from an asset sale after Corrales's death. The estate also filed a separate derivative action on behalf of the company against the attorneys for professional negligence and related claims, which the trial court dismissed after sustaining a demurrer. The appellate court reversed the denial of leave to amend the individual action, directing that the estate be permitted to allege conspiracy to commit fraud against the attorneys, and reversed the dismissal of the derivative action, remanding for redetermination of whether attorney-client privilege barred the claims or was overcome by the crime-fraud exception or waiver.
The case involved Martin O.'s petition to terminate the parental rights of Jose T. under Family Code section 7822 on grounds of abandonment, as a step toward adopting the three children who had been in the care of their mother and Martin O. for over eight years. Jose T., incarcerated in Mexico, appealed the termination judgment, arguing it was void due to lack of personal jurisdiction from improper service under the Hague Service Convention. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Jose T. had made a general appearance through his appointed counsel at multiple pretrial hearings without objecting to service or jurisdiction. This appearance constituted consent to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction, rendering the service issue irrelevant. The decision rested on established principles that a general appearance waives defects in service of process.
GreenLake Capital sued Bingo Investments to recover a $3 million success fee under a 2006 letter agreement for identifying and procuring a $150 million credit facility from lenders including First Capital and West LB. Bingo moved for summary judgment on the ground that GreenLake lacked a California real estate broker license required by Business and Professions Code section 10131, and the trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the licensing statute does not automatically bar recovery for services that involve structuring and negotiating a credit facility that may include non-real-estate elements such as mezzanine financing, and that recent decisions interpreting the statute created an exception to any forfeiture rule that might otherwise apply. The court concluded there were triable issues whether the transaction fell within the statute’s reach, so summary judgment was improper.
The case involved a commercial landlord's unlawful detainer action against its tenant after the landlord sent a five-day notice to pay rent or quit via email, fax, and certified mail to the tenant's leasing manager. The lease authorized electronic service of notices but required them to be directed to a specific street address designated by the parties, which the landlord did not use; the tenant had previously provided a change-of-address notice under the lease. Although the tenant actually received the notice and attempted to cure by sending payment, the trial court granted the tenant's motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the landlord failed to present evidence of proper service to the lease-specified address and that actual receipt did not constitute a waiver of the lease's notice requirements, which expressly govern service in this commercial context.