William F. Rylaarsdam

The case involved homeowners Lucy and Manatu Vuki who lost their Buena Park home to foreclosure by lender HSBC in 2009, stipulated to judgment in an unlawful detainer action, filed for bankruptcy, and then sued HSBC in state court alleging violations of Civil Code sections 2923.52 and 2923.53 concerning required loan modification programs and foreclosure delays. After the trial court denied their request for a temporary restraining order to halt eviction, the Vukis petitioned the appellate court for a writ staying the eviction. The court denied the writ petition, concluding that sections 2923.52 and 2923.53 do not create a private right of action and enforcement is instead committed to regulatory agencies, while section 2923.54 expressly provides that noncompliance with those sections does not invalidate an otherwise valid foreclosure sale under section 2924f.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved homeowners in a Santa Ana condominium project who held individual 75-year ground leases and disputed the meaning of 'leased land' in clauses allowing rent adjustments after 30 years with the trustees of the family trust that owned the underlying land. The homeowners contended that each lease's 'leased land' covered only their specific condominium unit plus a fractional share of common areas in their parcel, while the trustees argued it should encompass the entire project acreage including a recreation center on a separately leased parcel. The Court of Appeal held that the lease language was unambiguous on its face and not reasonably susceptible to the trustees' interpretation, so extrinsic evidence was irrelevant and the trial court's contrary judgment was reversed. The decision directed entry of a new declaratory judgment defining 'leased land' narrowly and excluding the recreation center from valuations for rent adjustments.

property

In Formet v. the Lloyd Termite Control Co., plaintiff Kelly Formet, a guest at a property, sued a licensed pest inspection company after falling from a balcony due to dry rot damage that the company allegedly failed to discover and disclose in a Wood Destroying Pests and Organisms Report prepared for the prior owner. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, concluding it owed no legal duty to the plaintiff. On de novo review, the appellate court affirmed, holding that the pest inspector's duties under statute and contract are limited to the contracting homeowner and intended beneficiaries, not third-party invitees or guests. The decision relied on precedents such as Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. limiting liability of information providers to non-privity parties, along with an analysis of the Rowland factors weighing against imposing a duty in this commercial context.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved adult children suing StarCare Medical Group and PacifiCare of California on behalf of their deceased father, a Medicare enrollee, alleging that inadequate care at a nursing facility caused his death due to the providers' financial incentives to deny necessary services and failures in utilization review and disclosure. The trial court dismissed the claims against both defendants on grounds including preemption under the federal Medicare Act. The appellate court reversed the judgment against StarCare because the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the parties' stipulated continuance to allow amendment of the complaint. As to PacifiCare, the court affirmed dismissal of one cause of action directly challenging a benefits determination but reversed as to the others, reasoning that most claims rested on generally applicable common-law duties like good faith and fraud rather than Medicare-specific regulations, and that administrative exhaustion was not required.

healthcarefederal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned defendant Samuel Benitez's convictions for resisting an officer, possession of methamphetamine, and misdemeanor resisting an officer, based in part on a laboratory report identifying a substance as methamphetamine. The report and related notes were prepared by an analyst who did not testify at trial; instead, the lab supervisor testified about the results using the analyst's notes and introduced a signed request-for-analysis form. After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the court determined that the report and notes constituted testimonial statements subject to the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause. It therefore reversed the methamphetamine possession conviction, holding that the supervisor's testimony did not satisfy the defendant's right to cross-examine the analyst who performed the testing, but affirmed the remaining convictions because the error was not harmless as to that count alone.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Stein v. York, plaintiff Ruth Stein sued her former attorney Michael York for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud after her personal injury case was dismissed, seeking damages according to proof without specifying an amount. After the defendant failed to answer, a default was entered, and the court awarded a default judgment of $2.65 million following a prove-up hearing. The defendant appealed, contending the judgment was void for lack of proper notice of the damages sought. The appellate court reversed, holding that under Code of Civil Procedure section 580, a default judgment cannot be entered for an amount not specified in the complaint, rendering the judgment void regardless of the defendant's participation in pretrial proceedings.

proceduretorts & liability