The case involved plaintiffs who obtained home loans from Washington Mutual and sued over alleged overcharges for underwriting, tax services, and wire transfer fees, claiming the bank marked up costs beyond what it paid third parties and failed to pass on savings from automated systems. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract, and related theories, based on disclosures in HUD-1 statements and deeds of trust suggesting pass-through pricing only. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal reversed as to certain causes of action, holding that the second amended complaint sufficiently alleged implied contractual terms from the loan documents and potential violations of RESPA disclosure rules regarding the fees.
This case involves a qui tam action under the California False Claims Act brought by relator Nora Armenta and several municipalities against manufacturers Mueller Co., Tyco, and others, alleging that the defendants sold substandard bronze water system components to government entities while falsely representing in catalogs and sales materials that the parts met AWWA standards requiring 85 metal composition. The trial court had granted but then partially revoked leave to file a second amended complaint adding more plaintiffs and had entered summary judgments for the defendants. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an unfair condition on the amendment and that triable issues of material fact existed regarding the defendants' knowledge of the misrepresentations and their potential liability under the CFCA as direct presenters or beneficiaries of false claims.
In this case, 14-year-old Rene C. faced a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition charging him with murder, attempted murder, and assault with a firearm, triggering a statutory presumption of unfitness for juvenile court treatment under section 707. After an Edsel P. hearing establishing a prima facie case and a subsequent fitness hearing, the juvenile court found Rene unfit for juvenile proceedings based on the gravity of the offenses and ordered him tried as an adult. Rene petitioned for a writ of mandate, arguing errors in the handling of self-defense evidence and insufficient consideration of psychological evaluation criteria such as his passive role, rehabilitation potential, and lack of prior delinquent history. The Court of Appeal granted the petition, directing the juvenile court to vacate its unfitness order and enter a new finding that Rene is fit for juvenile court treatment.
In this case, defendants Factor Health Management, Robert Gardner, and Donna Ligda petitioned for a writ of mandate after the trial court denied their motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction in a lawsuit brought by Apex Therapeutic Care and eBiocare.com alleging breach of fiduciary duty, trade secret misappropriation, and related claims. The defendants had previously filed an ex parte application seeking discovery to oppose a preliminary injunction on the merits of the case, prior to filing their jurisdictional motion. The Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that the defendants' discovery efforts on issues beyond jurisdiction amounted to a general appearance that waived their right to contest personal jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.11. The court reasoned that while certain ex parte appearances and jurisdictional discovery are protected, affirmative steps involving the case merits before a timely motion to quash do not qualify for such protection and constitute submission to the court's authority.
This case involved a dispute over which insurance policies covered a 1998 workplace accident in which employee Miguel Llamas was injured when a cherry picker bucket fell from a truck owned by JMSD. Scottsdale had issued both primary and excess commercial general liability policies to JMSD, while State Farm and CUIC had issued primary and excess automobile liability policies that specifically covered the truck; after the underlying suit settled for $1.375 million with payments from Scottsdale and State Farm, Scottsdale sued for declaratory relief and indemnification, and State Farm cross-claimed. The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm and CUIC, finding that Llamas qualified as an insured under the State Farm policy so that a bodily-injury exclusion applied and no coverage existed under either the State Farm or CUIC policies. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Insurance Code section 11580.06(f) and (g) established Llamas was not an insured under the State Farm policy and therefore the exclusion did not bar coverage, that section 11580.9(d) did not apply to prioritize the policies because Scottsdale’s policies were not automobile liability insurance for the truck, and that the trial court must reconsider the parties’ motions on remand under ordinary rules for determining primary versus excess coverage.
The case concerned a challenge by landlord Robert Bisno to Regulation 3304, adopted by the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, which allows landlords to seek rent increases for units not occupied by tenants as their principal residence. The court held that the Board acted within its authority under the Rent Control Law (RCL) and upheld the regulation as valid. The RCL's purposes focus on alleviating housing shortages by protecting residents and ensuring landlords receive a fair return, with the definition of "tenant" emphasizing actual occupancy and use. The court reasoned that the regulation aligns with these goals by limiting protections to principal residents rather than those using units for secondary purposes like vacations, which could otherwise require landlords to subsidize non-residents and discourage investment in affordable housing. The judgment declaring the regulation valid was affirmed.