California Court of Appeal, 6th District — appointed by Ronald Reagan
California Court of Appeal, 6th District — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Ajaxo Inc. v. E Trade Financial Corp.
California Court of Appeal · 2010-08-30 · cited 26×
In Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp., Ajaxo sued E*Trade for willfully and maliciously misappropriating its trade secrets under California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act after E*Trade used the information to develop wireless trading technology with another company. Following a prior trial establishing liability, the second trial focused on damages, where the jury found that E*Trade had not been unjustly enriched and instead suffered losses exceeding $2 million. The trial court denied Ajaxo's request for reasonable royalties, reasoning that unjust enrichment was provable even if the net amount was zero. The appellate court reversed, holding that since the jury determined no enrichment occurred, it was not proved for purposes of the statute, allowing the court to award a reasonable royalty instead.
business & regulatorytorts & liability
In Re Michael K.
California Court of Appeal · 2010-06-22 · cited 8×
The case involved the appropriate residential placement for Michael K., a gravely disabled adult with developmental disabilities who had lived at Agnews State Hospital since 1986 and whose parents served as coconservators. After the state planned to close Agnews, the regional center proposed placement in a Senate Bill No. 962 Home, but the parents objected and an administrative law judge ordered placement at Sonoma Developmental Center instead. The public defender then filed a habeas corpus petition under In re Hop seeking the 962 Home placement; the trial court granted the petition, but the Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that the trial court had failed to defer to the administrative decision and that the public defender lacked standing given the existence of competent conservators.
civil rightsprocedurefamily law
City of San Jose v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
California Court of Appeal · 2010-05-20 · cited 2×
The case involved the City of San Jose condemning roadway easements across Union Pacific Railroad property to widen Oakland Road, with the parties stipulating to the taking and litigating only the compensation owed. The trial court awarded nominal compensation for the portions of the easements within the 20-foot Necessary Track Clearance Width around the tracks and fair-market-value compensation for the portions outside that corridor. Union Pacific appealed the nominal award, arguing for full fair-market value throughout, while the City cross-appealed seeking nominal compensation everywhere; the appellate court affirmed the judgment. It held that the 1925 precedent City of Oakland v. Schenck controlled because the taking within the track corridor did not interfere with railroad operations and was consistent with continued railroad use, warranting only nominal damages, while areas outside the corridor received market-value treatment.
property
People v. Hopkins
California Court of Appeal · 2010-05-11 · cited 2×
The case involved defendant Jason Hopkins, who pleaded no contest to possessing drug paraphernalia in prison under Penal Code section 4573.6 and was sentenced to two years consecutive to other terms. Hopkins appealed the trial court's denial of additional presentence custody credits, arguing he was held past his May 12, 2008 parole date solely due to the new charges until July 26, 2008, and that an amendment to section 4019 allowing day-for-day conduct credits should apply retroactively to his case. The Court of Appeal held that Hopkins was entitled to 75 additional days of custody credit under section 2900.5 because his extended incarceration was attributable only to the pending charges, reversing the trial court's order and directing modification of the judgment accordingly. However, the court rejected retroactive application of the section 4019 amendment, finding it did not apply to cases not yet final on the amendment's effective date. The judgment was affirmed as modified.
criminal lawprocedure
G.C. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal · 2010-03-30 · cited 8×
In this juvenile delinquency case, a 14-year-old minor admitted to felony vandalism by graffiti and was granted deferred entry of judgment with a condition to pay $516 in restitution to the City of San Jose for cleanup costs. After failing to pay, the minor moved under Welfare and Institutions Code section 742.16 to reconsider the order based on inability to pay, but the juvenile court held that the statute did not apply in the deferred entry of judgment context and declined to reach the motion's merits. The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate, concluding that section 742.16 applies to deferred entry of judgment cases because the statute's ability-to-pay requirement is consistent with the juvenile court's discretionary authority to impose and revisit restitution conditions during the deferral period. The court directed the juvenile court to hear and decide the motion on its merits, noting that ability to pay is relevant both at the outset and during the deferral to avoid impossible conditions and ensure victim compensation where no judgment will result.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Criscione
California Court of Appeal · 2009-12-18 · cited 14×
In this case, the Board of Parole Hearings denied parole suitability to Arthur Sam Criscione, who was serving a 15-to-life sentence for the 1979 second-degree murder of his girlfriend, after reviewing his commitment offense, institutional record, and psychological evaluations at his 14th parole hearing. The superior court granted Criscione's habeas corpus petition and ordered remand for a new hearing under the standards clarified in In re Lawrence (2008). The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Board's decision satisfied Lawrence because it relied on more than immutable factors from the crime and connected its concerns—particularly the 2007 psychological report's limited assessment of Criscione's risk of violence against intimate partners—to its conclusion that he posed an unreasonable risk to public safety if released. The court noted that explicit recitation of a "rational nexus" was not required where the Board's reasoning was evident from the record.
criminal lawprocedure