Vaino Spencer

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

procedure

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a breach of contract claim by plaintiff ABF Capital Corp. against defendant Robert Berglass, who had executed an assumption agreement making him personally liable for his share of deferred royalties owed by a New York limited partnership in the oil and gas business; the agreement was governed by New York law. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend and denied his motion for attorney's fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment of dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial and holding that New York law applied to the attorney's fees issue under choice-of-law principles because it had the most significant contacts and the parties' expectations favored enforcing their contractual selection of New York law. The court also affirmed the denial of fees under that applicable New York law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Connie Armijo's wrongful death lawsuit against medical providers after the death of her domestic partner Dana Schwartz, alleging medical malpractice. The trial court sustained demurrers, ruling that Armijo lacked standing under the 2002 version of Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 because she and Schwartz had not registered their domestic partnership with the Secretary of State. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that a 2005 amendment to the wrongful death statute—which expanded standing to qualifying domestic partners meeting criteria such as cohabitation, mutual responsibility, and age requirements, and applied retroactively—provided Armijo with standing based on the facts alleged in her complaint.

family lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In People v. Torres, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of attempted murder with firearm and great bodily injury enhancements, plus two counts of false imprisonment with a firearm enhancement, stemming from a 1993 incident in which he shot three doctors at a Los Angeles hospital while suffering from delusions of a medical conspiracy. Following a prior conviction reversed on federal habeas grounds, the defendant appealed his retrial convictions, challenging the insanity-phase jury instructions, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel at the sanity hearing, and contesting his sentence of life imprisonment plus consecutive terms. The court affirmed the underlying convictions but reversed the sanity finding due to prejudicial instructional error on the insanity defense and identified sentencing errors, including an improper aggregate term and an inapplicable prison-term notation on the abstract of judgment. It remanded for a new sanity hearing, with resentencing limited to 12 years plus two consecutive life terms if sanity is again found. The opinion addresses core issues of criminal procedure in the sanity phase and sentencing calculations under the Penal Code.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit by N.L. against the County of Los Angeles for emotional distress and related claims stemming from sexual assaults by a county employee at a juvenile facility when N.L. was 17. N.L. presented a timely government claim that the County rejected by notice mailed in May 2002, but she did not file suit until December 2003, more than six months later. The trial court denied the County's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the extended limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 for childhood sexual abuse victims applied instead of the six-month deadline in Government Code section 945.6. The Court of Appeal granted the County's petition for writ relief, holding that the California Tort Claims Act's specific statute of limitations governs actions against public entities and bars the suit regardless of the sexual abuse provisions or lack of actual receipt of the rejection notice.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned the timeliness of a notice of appeal filed by defendant Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Association from a judgment in favor of plaintiff ECC Construction, Inc., specifically as to claims in the defendant's cross-complaint, in light of an intervening bankruptcy filing and post-trial motions. The court denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that the notice of appeal filed on November 18, 2002, was timely with respect to the cross-complaint. The core reasoning was that the automatic bankruptcy stay triggered an extension under 11 U.S.C. section 108(c), which extended the filing deadline to 30 days after notice of termination of the stay (plus any applicable tolling), resulting in a deadline of November 25, 2002.

procedure

The case concerned whether defendant Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Association timely filed a notice of appeal from an August 5, 2002 judgment in favor of ECC Construction, Inc., after filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy the next day, which imposed an automatic stay on proceedings. Post-trial motions were filed, the state court stayed the action, the bankruptcy court later lifted the stay, and the motions were ultimately denied by operation of law on October 4, 2002, extending the appeal deadline to November 4 under California Rules of Court. Defendant filed its notice of appeal on November 18 from the original judgment, prompting plaintiff's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court held the notice timely, ruling that 11 U.S.C. section 108(c)(2) extended the time to rule on the motions and file the appeal by 30 days due to the pending stay, and therefore denied the dismissal motion.

procedurefederal power

The case concerned a dispute over ownership of a church building, hall, and related property between Guardian Angel Polish National Catholic Church of Los Angeles, Inc., a local parish incorporated in 1960, and the hierarchical Polish National Catholic Church along with its bishop. The trial court awarded the property to the local parish and denied the defendants' cross-claims, but the Court of Appeal reversed. The appellate court held that the national church's constitution, combined with the parish's articles and bylaws, created an express trust under which the property belonged to conforming members and reverted to the national church upon liquidation, expulsion, or unlawful transfer of title. This conclusion followed from the church's governance documents dividing authority between temporal parish control and religious oversight by bishops, along with specific provisions requiring conformity to church law for property rights.

propertyreligious liberty

The case involved plaintiffs who leased commercial property and attempted to exercise an option to extend the lease term, which required written notice by a date 60 days before expiration on July 31, 2002. When that deadline fell on Saturday, June 1, plaintiffs mailed notice on Monday, June 3, but defendants rejected it as untimely and sought to terminate the lease. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and declaratory relief, arguing that Code of Civil Procedure section 12a extended the deadline past the Saturday holiday. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint after sustaining a demurrer, holding that section 12a applies only to acts required by law and not to contractual deadlines, as evidenced by the statute's omission of language covering contracts that appears in related Civil Code provisions.

propertyprocedure

In Gibbs v. Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC, plaintiff Robert Gibbs appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claims for wrongful termination based on age discrimination, violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after his employer terminated him following an acquisition and restructuring of his operations manager position. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination—namely, that Gibbs lacked the necessary computer skills and had management style issues incompatible with the restructured role—and that Gibbs failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination or show the reason was pretextual. Isolated comments about his age by a supervisor and subordinate were deemed stray remarks unrelated to the decision, and the small number of other terminations of older employees did not support an inference of discrimination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a dispute over the Insurance Commissioner's interpretation of regulations in the California Workers' Compensation Unit Statistical Plan governing when claims initially reported as compensable could be reclassified as noncompensable for purposes of calculating an employer's experience modification factor and insurance premiums. Simi Corporation challenged the Commissioner's ruling on three claims where liability was not timely rejected, leading to a presumption of compensability, and the trial court granted a writ of mandate requiring the decision to be set aside. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that the Commissioner's interpretation of the applicable regulations, including the definition of an 'officially closed' claim under the third contingency for declaring noncompensability, was entitled to deference and must be upheld.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved LAPD officer Bryan Haney, who was terminated after a Board of Rights found he had left his assigned foot patrol post without authorization to attend a barbecue on Memorial Day 1998 and had submitted a daily field activities report containing false information about his activities that day. Haney petitioned for administrative mandamus to compel his reinstatement, arguing that the disciplinary charges were barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that discharge was an abuse of discretion. The trial court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the investigation was completed and the complaint filed within the applicable limitations period under section 202 of the Los Angeles City Charter and Government Code section 3304. The court further reasoned that the discharge was within the department's discretion because Haney's absence deprived the public of police protection and his false reports demonstrated a lack of integrity essential to law enforcement. The judgment terminating Haney's employment was therefore upheld.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Eller Media Company's applications for building permits to erect two billboards in the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area, which the Community Redevelopment Agency denied after initial studies found potential significant impacts on historic resources and aesthetics requiring a supplemental environmental impact report under CEQA for one site and mitigation for the other, along with noncompliance with the redevelopment plan. Eller petitioned for a writ of administrative mandamus and declaratory relief, arguing the signs complied with the plan and that the agency's CEQA processes were flawed. The trial court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency's findings of new significant environmental effects not covered in the original EIR, that the agency followed proper CEQA procedures as the lead agency, and that Eller had not met the requirements for permit approval.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over payments owed under a 1994 release agreement between plaintiff Melchior and Prelude Pictures regarding rights to the film Lost in Space, which Prelude later assigned to defendant New Line Productions. Under the agreement, Melchior was to receive a $75,000 production bonus, a 2% share of Prelude's gross receipts, and other credits and fees if the film was produced; New Line made the film and paid the bonus and advisor fees but not the gross receipts percentage. The trial court granted summary judgment to New Line on all claims, but the Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that triable issues existed as to whether New Line had assumed the gross receipts obligation through the assignment and whether the payment was due, while affirming dismissal of the conversion and unjust enrichment claims on preemption and other grounds.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Rosen v. State Farm General Insurance Co., a homeowner sought coverage under his policy for repairing decks that a contractor found to be severely deteriorated and in imminent danger of collapse. The policy's collapse provision limited coverage to direct physical loss involving the "sudden, entire collapse" of a building or part thereof, expressly defining "collapse" as "actually fallen down or fallen into pieces" and excluding settling or sagging, with coverage further limited to specified perils. State Farm denied the claim because no actual collapse had occurred and the homeowner had repaired the decks before inspection. The trial court ruled for the homeowner on public policy grounds, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that public policy requires coverage for imminent collapse to avoid encouraging property owners to risk injury or greater damage by waiting for an actual collapse.

propertybusiness & regulatory