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

The case concerned whether the City of Irvine could seek judicial review via a writ of mandate to challenge the Southern California Association of Governments' allocation of regional housing needs under Government Code section 65584 et seq., after the city's administrative appeal was denied. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the 2004 statutory amendments deliberately removed prior language authorizing mandamus review, establishing the administrative process as the exclusive remedy. The court reasoned that the comprehensive administrative procedures, including opportunities for public input and appeals, reflected the Legislature's intent to prevent judicial interference that could disrupt local planning processes.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Choi v. Orange County Great Park Corp., two minority directors of a public benefit nonprofit corporation sued to compel production of documents from a CEO search process under Corporations Code section 6334 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. The parties settled via stipulation before any hearing or judgment, with the corporation agreeing to provide the requested materials at a closed board meeting under the Brown Act. The trial court denied the directors' motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, finding no traditional prevailing party status or concrete benefit from an adjudication. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the directors satisfied the private attorney general criteria—including enforcement of an important public right with a significant benefit to the public, necessity of the lawsuit, and no personal monetary recovery—warranting fees, and remanded solely to determine the amount.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the California Department of Parks and Recreation could rescind its internal 1979 Cahill Policy—which directed enforcement of the state park nudity ban (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 4322) only upon citizen complaints—without following Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements. Plaintiffs, including the Naturist Action Committee, petitioned for a writ of mandate to reinstate the policy at San Onofre State Beach pending APA compliance. The court reversed the trial court's issuance of the writ, holding that the Cahill Policy was an invalid underground regulation because it had not undergone the APA's mandatory steps of public notice, comment, response, and filing with the Office of Administrative Law. As a result, the department's 2008 rescission memo did not require APA process, since it merely discontinued an unenforceable policy.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs challenging the California Coastal Commission's approval of coastal development permits for two residential lots on a coastal bluff in San Clemente, alleging inadequate environmental review and procedural failures under the Commission's certified regulatory program. The trial court dismissed the petition as untimely under the Coastal Act's 60-day filing deadline from the date of approval. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the petition could proceed on a limited basis under CEQA's section 21080.5, which imposes a 30-day deadline after the notice of approval is filed with the Natural Resources Agency, because the statutes must be harmonized to allow challenges specifically to compliance with the environmental documentation and public review requirements of the certified program. The court reasoned that this reconciliation gives effect to both laws while encouraging timely filing of notices and confining claims to the exemption's procedural mandates.

environmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved consumers suing Kwikset Corporation for violations of the unfair competition law and false advertising law based on allegedly false "Made in U.S.A." labels on locksets containing foreign-made parts. After Proposition 64 amended those laws to limit standing to persons who suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result, the appellate court considered whether the second amended complaint adequately alleged the required standing. The court decided to grant the petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend and dismiss the action. The core reasoning was that merely alleging purchase of the products in reliance on the false labels does not establish economic injury, and the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable possibility of amending the complaint to allege such injury, including because the record contradicted claims of unreimbursed purchases or overpayment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an attorney for the defendants in a FINRA arbitration over unpaid commissions who appealed a trial court judgment confirming the arbitration award. The award included a $7,500 sanctions order against the attorney for copying and sending to FINRA 112 pages of inadvertently produced privileged documents during prehearing discovery, after which the defendants had returned the originals. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the attorney had sought the wrong statutory remedy to challenge only part of the award, that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers by imposing sanctions for the misconduct, and that courts generally may not review the merits or factual sufficiency of arbitration decisions under California law. The panel's order was upheld because the attorney failed to show the sanctions violated the parties' arbitration agreement or applicable procedures.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a petition under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act to commit defendant Steven Daniel Force, a state prison inmate with a history of sexual offenses against minors, to the Department of Mental Health for an indeterminate term. After a 2007 jury trial, the court found Force qualified as a sexually violent predator based on expert testimony regarding his mental disorders and high risk of reoffending. On appeal, Force raised challenges to the application of amended SVP provisions on due process, ex post facto, double jeopardy, and retroactivity grounds, along with claims of evidentiary errors, improper jury instructions, and juror misconduct. The Court of Appeal rejected all arguments and affirmed the commitment order, holding that the proceedings complied with constitutional requirements and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

In this unlawful detainer case, landlord Maria de Jesus Lagunas Espinoza sued tenants Gudelia Calva and Jorge Soqui for failing to pay three months' rent on a leased property, seeking possession and a money judgment. The trial court ruled for the landlord despite evidence that the unit lacked a certificate of occupancy required by city ordinance, was substandard, and involved other habitability issues raised in the tenants' affirmative defenses, and it refused to issue a requested statement of decision. On appeal, the court reversed the money judgment, holding that the absence of the occupancy certificate rendered the lease an illegal contract under which the landlord could not recover rent, and that the trial court had failed to fulfill its mandatory duty to provide findings on the controverted issues.

propertyprocedure

In Kindrich v. Long Beach Yacht Club, plaintiff Carl Kindrich sued the yacht club and boat skipper for negligence after injuring himself jumping from a boat to a dock following a burial at sea event, alleging failure to provide steps or docking assistance. His wife and son brought related claims for loss of consortium and emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment based on primary assumption of risk, but the Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the doctrine applies only to sporting activities and that at most secondary assumption of risk, which relates to contributory negligence, was involved, creating factual issues precluding summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a products liability and wrongful death lawsuit by the Williamson family against Mazda after a 1993 minivan crash killed passenger Thanh Williamson, who was restrained only by a lap belt in the center middle seat; plaintiffs alleged the vehicle was defective for using a lap-only belt instead of a lap/shoulder belt and for related design and warning failures. The court affirmed dismissal of the claims, holding that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, which permitted manufacturers to install lap-only belts in that seating position, preempted the state tort action under conflict preemption principles from Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. The core reasoning was that allowing liability for choosing the federally authorized lap-only option would conflict with the federal regulatory scheme, and because plaintiffs conceded the seatbelt choice was integral to all their theories, alternative claims like defective seat design or failure to warn were also barred.

federal powertorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether a prisoner paroled from state prison but immediately transferred to local custody for evaluation under the Sexually Violent Predator Act was entitled to the $200 release allowance mandated by Penal Code section 2713.1. The court held that the prisoner was entitled to the payment and that the Department of Corrections regulation denying it to inmates released to local law enforcement custody, including SVPA holds, was invalid. The core reasoning was that section 2713.1 expressly requires the allowance upon release and authorizes the department to limit payments only in specified circumstances not applicable here, while the broader regulatory authority under section 5058 cannot override the more specific statutory mandate. The court rejected arguments based on administrative exhaustion and legislative intent, noting any change to exclude SVPA cases would require legislative amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Penal Code section 1381's speedy-trial and sentencing requirements apply to a probation revocation proceeding when a defendant is already serving a prison term and imposition of sentence on the probation matter had been suspended. The Court of Appeal held that section 1381 does apply because the probationer "remains to be sentenced," so the Orange County Superior Court was required to bring him before it for the revocation hearing within 90 days of his demand or dismiss the probation violation proceedings. The court rejected contrary authority in People v. Broughton, reasoning that the statutory text is unambiguous, the policies favoring prompt resolution of pending matters apply equally to unsentenced probationers, and dismissal need only reach the probation proceedings rather than the underlying conviction. It therefore granted the petition for mandate and ordered the trial court to vacate the probation revocation, recall the warrant, and direct recall of the detainer.

criminal lawprocedure

In Roberts v. Assurance Co. of America, homeowners who built a house on a steep slope sued their insurance broker and carrier after a landslide damaged the property, seeking coverage under builder's risk and unsold dwelling policies as well as claiming the broker failed to obtain requested liability insurance. The trial court granted summary adjudication to both defendants, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the policies' exclusions for earth movement, weather conditions, government actions, and defective construction applied to bar the first-party property claim, as the landslide was caused by an ancient slide activated by fill placement and rains. It further found no triable issues of fact on whether liability coverage was requested from the broker or on the efficient proximate cause doctrine, since any alleged concealment was not a distinct peril separate from the excluded earth movement. The court rejected arguments that negligent construction or concealment could circumvent the exclusions.

propertyprocedure

This case involved heirs of decedent Jack Harry Bennett who sought to rescind a 2004 settlement agreement and assignment of their estate interests to Smith Heavy Industrial Transit Corporation, a judgment creditor pursuing collection through a prior fraudulent conveyance lawsuit. The probate court granted the heirs' motion under Probate Code section 11604 to set aside the agreement on grounds including inadequate consideration, fraud, duress, and mistake. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the probate court had jurisdiction to review the agreement's enforceability but erred by denying Smith's request for an evidentiary hearing before ruling. The court reversed the order, noting that section 11604 requires factual inquiry into the reasonableness of consideration and permits either modification or rescission if grounds are established after such a hearing.

propertyprocedure