The case involved Bahram Nazeri, who was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for stabbing his wife and mother-in-law to death. On appeal, the sole issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support findings of deliberation and premeditation for first-degree murder. The court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the evidence allowed a reasonable inference that Nazeri, motivated by suspicions of his wife's infidelity, feelings of mockery from his mother-in-law, and fears of a plot against him, retrieved an ornamental knife and descended the stairs with the specific intent to kill both women.

criminal law

In this medical malpractice case, the Montgomerys sued physician Mark Knight over injuries from liposuction performed on Laura Montgomery, designating plastic surgeon John Shamoun as their expert on standard of care and causation. Knight's counsel, who had represented Shamoun in a prior malpractice case ten years earlier, moved to disqualify Shamoun as an expert to avoid any conflict arising from confidential information, and the trial court granted the motion. The appellate court granted the Montgomerys' petition for relief, holding that the disqualification was unnecessary because the matter involved successive representation focused on confidentiality rather than loyalty, and Shamoun could provide an unqualified informed waiver of the attorney-client privilege to allow counsel to proceed without restriction. The court directed the trial court to vacate the order and permit the waiver if properly executed.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This shareholder derivative suit alleged that directors of VitroTech, a company formed through a reverse merger involving assets from Hi-Tech and a public shell company Star, engaged in self-dealing by transferring company assets to their private entities and imposing unfavorable obligations from related mining and IP companies. The trial court dismissed the second amended complaint after requiring allegations under Nevada law, reasoning that no fiduciary violations occurred during the plaintiff's stock ownership. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that the trial court erred both in mandating Nevada law and in finding the allegations insufficient, as the complaint described ongoing self-dealing into the period of plaintiff's ownership. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend to plead claims under California law, which the court determined applied based on the company's contacts. Neither state's law permits such director self-dealing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns whether a lender complied with Civil Code section 2923.5 (the Perata Mortgage Relief Act), which requires contact with a borrower before filing a notice of default to assess the borrower's finances and explore foreclosure-avoidance options. Homeowners Terry and Michael Mabry challenged Aurora Loan Services' foreclosure proceedings on their refinanced home, claiming no such contact occurred, while the lender asserted multiple attempts were made. The court held that the statute creates a private right of action limited to postponing a foreclosure sale for compliance, does not require the borrower to tender the full debt, is not preempted by federal law given the narrow remedy, and does not demand a penalty-of-perjury declaration or custom drafting in notices of default. It further ruled that prior foreclosure sales cannot be undone for noncompliance and that class actions are inappropriate due to fact-specific inquiries. The matter was remanded to resolve conflicting factual accounts of the lender's efforts, as the trial court had ruled solely on legal grounds.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose from a lawsuit by a Dutch law firm against Boyajian, Ordoubadi, and Showrai for unpaid fees after the firm was deceived into pursuing a fraudulent claim before the Hague Tribunal. Boyajian and Ordoubadi filed cross-claims against each other for equitable indemnity. Ordoubadi had obtained a bankruptcy discharge in 1994, and the trial court ruled that this discharge barred Boyajian's prepetition indemnity claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that bankruptcy law discharges contingent claims, including unliquidated equitable indemnity claims that exist before the exact amount of liability is determined.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a class action lawsuit by Maria Lourdes Gutierrez against G & M Oil Company alleging violations of wage and hour laws regarding unpaid time for cashiers and missed meal breaks. After the company's vice president and general counsel, Michael Gray, failed to respond to the complaint, resulting in a default judgment, the trial court granted relief from default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 based on Gray's affidavit of neglect. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that in-house attorneys qualify for mandatory relief under section 473 even if they hold corporate officer titles, as the statute's text makes no distinction and Gray was acting solely in his legal capacity by concealing the litigation. The decision relied on prior Supreme Court precedents treating in-house counsel as attorneys for purposes of fee awards and retaliatory discharge claims, without creating an implied exception for dual-role counsel when only legal services were involved.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory