Laurie D. Zelon

The case involved a dispute between the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Trustees of the Southern California IBEW-NECA Pension Plan over whether Labor Code section 1776, subdivision (e) created an absolute privilege preventing the District from disclosing unredacted certified payroll records containing employees' names, addresses, and Social Security numbers in response to discovery requests. The Trustees sought the records to identify and allocate unpaid employee fringe benefits owed by a contractor under a Project Stabilization Agreement. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the Trustees, holding that the statute imposes only a conditional privilege under Evidence Code section 1040 rather than an absolute bar. The core reasoning was that the redaction requirement applies specifically to public inspection of records held by awarding agencies, not to discovery in litigation, and that any confidentiality interests must be balanced against the Trustees' demonstrated need for the information to enforce benefit contributions.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved attorneys who represented injured workers before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) filing class action lawsuits against employers and insurers for failing to pay interest on attorney fee awards. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that while the attorneys had standing to seek the interest, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to enforce payment of interest because the WCAB awards did not expressly include it, and the proper forum was the WCAB itself under the exclusive provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Morgan v. United Retail Inc., a former employee filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the employer's wage statements violated Labor Code section 226 by listing regular and overtime hours separately without including their sum on a distinct line. The trial court granted summary adjudication to the employer, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the statements satisfied the statute's requirement to show total hours worked. The court reasoned that separately itemizing regular and overtime hours provided the precise total hours worked by employees, meeting the statutory mandate without need for an additional summed line. The decision focused on statutory compliance rather than any claimed injury or intent.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Scalzo v. Baker, Frederick Scalzo sued his brother Martin Scalzo along with Martin's attorneys and accountants for obtaining and sharing his private American Express credit card statements without permission, alleging invasion of privacy, violations of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and California Financial Information Privacy Act, and seeking injunctive relief for the return of the records. The trial court granted the attorneys' and accountants' special motions to strike the injunctive relief claim under the anti-SLAPP statute, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling while reversing as to Martin. The court reasoned that the attorneys' and accountants' conduct qualified as protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute because it occurred in connection with litigation over funds from jointly held property, and the plaintiff did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing against them.

proceduretorts & liability

In Mendoza v. Ramos, the parents of four minor children disputed a modification to custody and child support orders after the father sought to reduce his payments by attributing income to the mother, who received CalWORKs public assistance while complying with the program's counseling and educational requirements. The trial court declined to impute earnings to the mother, set the father's income at a stipulated amount, and ordered him to pay $873 monthly in child support. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Family Code section 4058 permits consideration of earning capacity only when consistent with the children's best interests, and that requiring the mother to work or forgo assistance would interfere with her approved program. The court also rejected the father's claim of denied cross-examination rights, finding he forfeited the issue by not requesting live testimony at the hearing.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a class action lawsuit under California's unfair competition law brought by Andrew Arce, a child with autism, against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and related entities. Arce alleged that Kaiser violated the Mental Health Parity Act by categorically denying coverage for behavioral therapy and speech therapy to treat autism spectrum disorders, instead treating them as non-covered educational or custodial care. The trial court sustained Kaiser's demurrer without leave to amend, citing judicial abstention and lack of commonality among class members. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Arce could potentially establish the community of interest required for a class action and that resolving the claims would not necessitate individualized medical necessity determinations or intrude on matters reserved for administrative agencies.

healthcareprocedure

In Polanski v. Superior Court, Roman Polanski, a fugitive since 1978 after pleading guilty in 1977 to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, sought dismissal of the long-pending criminal case or an evidentiary hearing on claims of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, but the trial court refused to consider the request until Polanski returned to the United States and submitted to its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal denied Polanski's petition for a writ compelling dismissal or a hearing. The court held that the trial court properly applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in declining to exercise its discretion to dismiss the action while Polanski remained a fugitive, without disregarding the serious misconduct allegations but instead urging the parties to investigate them independently of Polanski's custody status.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a juvenile dependency proceeding for minor R.N., who had been placed with her paternal grandparents as guardians in 1996 due to her parents' substance abuse. After both grandparents died, the aunt filed a section 388 petition to be appointed guardian, which the dependency court granted while opposing the father's request for consideration as guardian; the court also summarily denied the father's later section 388 petition to terminate the guardianship and seek custody. The Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that the dependency court erred by failing to apply the procedures of section 366.3, which entitled the father to notification, participation in permanency planning, and evaluation for possible reunification services before a new guardian could be appointed or his petition denied.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Los Angeles police officer Cesar Wences, who received an official reprimand after an off-duty incident in which he drew his weapon and fired a warning shot during a confrontation outside his home. Wences challenged the discipline through an administrative appeal and then petitioned the superior court for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, arguing the charges should be set aside. The trial court denied the petition, finding substantial evidence supported the department's decision. On appeal, the court held that because the discipline affected Wences's fundamental vested right in his employment, the trial court was required to exercise its independent judgment rather than defer to substantial evidence, and therefore reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a former class member in a wage-and-hour class action against Allstate who sued class counsel and Allstate for negligence and legal malpractice after failing to receive any settlement proceeds due to submitting his claim form after the deadline, allegedly because of health issues from prostate cancer. The plaintiff claimed that class counsel and Allstate had a duty to follow up with non-responding class members before the deadline to ensure timely claims. The trial court sustained demurrers by class counsel without leave to amend and granted sanctions to Allstate under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. The appellate court affirmed the demurrers on the ground that class counsel owed no individual duty to the plaintiff to contact him about filing the claim form, but reversed the sanctions award because Allstate failed to comply with the statute's safe harbor notice requirements.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case arose from a lawsuit by tenants against the managers and directors of Amar Plaza, a low-income housing cooperative, in which Sharon Green intervened alleging violations of the Corporations Code and the cooperative's bylaws under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act. After Green's counsel withdrew and she proceeded self-represented, the trial court granted the prevailing Amar Plaza parties' unopposed motion for summary judgment and then awarded them no attorney's fees under Civil Code section 1354(c) due to Green's indigency. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the statute requires an award of reasonable fees to the prevailing party but that the amount must be determined in light of the litigant's financial condition. The court remanded for reconsideration of the fee amount, noting that using fee awards to deter self-represented or indigent litigants from accessing the courts conflicts with California policy favoring access to justice, as reflected in California Rules of Court, rule 10.960.

propertyprocedure

This case arose from an internal dispute at Iglesia Evangélica Latina, Inc. (IEL), a local church affiliated with the hierarchical Assemblies of God organization, after which the intermediate district body SPLAD removed IEL's pastors, reclassified it as a district council church, assumed control of its governance, and transferred 16 parcels of its real property to SPLAD. IEL and its members sued to recover the property and related claims, while SPLAD brought actions for ejectment, quiet title, and forcible detainer. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment for SPLAD, holding that SPLAD lacked authority under the parties' governing documents to take over IEL's corporate control or transfer its property, and ruled for IEL on the property-related claims while remanding the remainder for retrial. The court applied neutral principles of secular corporate and property law to the constitutions and bylaws, which preserved general council churches' self-governance rights and did not grant SPLAD takeover powers in this scenario, while deferring only to the denomination on purely ecclesiastical questions.

religious libertyproperty

In this case, Compulink sued its insurer St. Paul for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging that St. Paul failed to timely defend it in a third-party lawsuit, underpaid independent counsel fees, and impeded settlement, seeking over $1 million in damages. St. Paul petitioned to compel arbitration of the fee dispute under Civil Code section 2860(c), which mandates arbitration for disputes over the amount of fees owed to Cumis counsel. The trial court denied the petition in full, finding that the bad faith allegations placed the entire action outside the statute's scope. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the plain language of section 2860(c) requires arbitration solely of issues concerning the amount of Cumis fees owed, including hourly rates and hours billed, while all other claims remain in court for adjudication.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Ronald Ward's conviction for selling a controlled substance and possessing cocaine base for sale after an undercover drug transaction. Ward appealed, arguing that his request for discovery of police officers' personnel records was improperly denied and that the statute imposing higher penalties for cocaine base compared to powder cocaine violated his rights to due process and equal protection. The court rejected the constitutional challenges, finding a rational basis for the sentencing distinction between the forms of cocaine, but determined that the trial court should have reviewed the requested records in camera for two officers. As a result, the conviction was conditionally reversed and the case remanded for further discovery proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Re Asencio involves a habeas corpus petition by Jose Roberto Asencio challenging his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child under Penal Code section 269 and forcible lewd acts on a child. Asencio, convicted based on acts against his six-year-old niece including digital penetration and penile contact, argued that evidence was insufficient to support the assault conviction, that only one act of penetration occurred so multiple counts should be reversed, and that trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court denied the petition, holding that the victim's statements and Asencio's admissions provided sufficient evidence of distinct acts of digital penetration and penile-vaginal contact to support the convictions and that counsel was not ineffective.

criminal law

The case involved Agneta Dobos's challenge to the denial of her application for long-term disability benefits under the Los Angeles County plan after her employment was terminated. The trial court denied her petition for writ of administrative mandate, finding she did not meet the plan's eligibility requirements. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that under the plain language of the Los Angeles County Code, an employee must remain employed by the County through the end of the six-month qualifying period to qualify for benefits. Because Dobos's employment ended before that period expired, she was ineligible regardless of her disability status.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Padilla v. Pomona College, plaintiff Antonio Padilla, an employee of subcontractor TEG/LVI, sued Pomona College and general contractor Gordon & Williams for negligence and premises liability after suffering injuries when a pressurized PVC pipe broke during demolition work on a dormitory remodel, knocking him off a ladder. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the defendants had delegated the task of ensuring worksite safety to subcontractors without retaining control in a way that affirmatively contributed to the injury. The court further ruled that Cal-OSHA regulations did not impose a nondelegable duty on the defendants or support negligence per se, as those obligations fell on the direct employer, and that the plaintiff's expert testimony lacked foundation. The decision rested on precedents such as Hooker v. Department of Transportation and Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., which limit hirer liability for independent contractor injuries absent active involvement in unsafe methods.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Timothy Stallworth's appeal from convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder, shooting at inhabited dwellings or vehicles, assault with a deadly weapon, and misdemeanor battery arising from two 2003 shooting incidents, including freeway shootings that caused one death. The Court of Appeal reversed the convictions on counts 1 through 7 related to the freeway shootings but affirmed the remaining convictions and rejected challenges to the admission of extrajudicial statements and sentencing. The core reasoning was that redaction of Stallworth's statements under Aranda and Bruton to avoid implicating a codefendant distorted the evidence presented, violating due process and Evidence Code section 356 by preventing full context, while other claims regarding jury instructions and gang enhancements on the reversed counts did not need to be reached.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Rish, the appellant appealed an order recommitting him to Atascadero State Hospital for continued involuntary treatment as a mentally disordered offender under Penal Code section 2972 after his conviction for assault with intent to commit rape. Rish did not dispute the evidence supporting his recommitment but argued that the trial court erred by failing to consider whether he could be safely and effectively treated on an outpatient basis under section 2972, subdivision (d). The Court of Appeal affirmed the recommitment order, concluding that Rish forfeited the outpatient treatment claim by not raising it at the hearing and that the trial court had no sua sponte duty to address it. The court further held that the evidence was insufficient to support outpatient treatment, citing Rish's history of aggression, medication non-compliance, substance use, and limited insight into his mental illness as shown through expert testimony.

criminal lawhealthcare

Joseph Manchel pleaded guilty to oral copulation with a 15-year-old under Penal Code section 288a(b)(2) and was ordered to register as a sex offender for life pursuant to section 290. He moved to vacate the registration requirement, claiming it violated equal protection based on the California Supreme Court's holding in People v. Hofsheier, which found mandatory registration unconstitutional for voluntary oral copulation with a 16- or 17-year-old. The court distinguished Hofsheier because, for a victim under 16, both oral copulation and unlawful sexual intercourse would subject the offender to mandatory registration under sections 288(c)(1) and 290, meaning Manchel could not show he was similarly situated to a group without the registration obligation. The appellate court therefore affirmed the trial court's denial of relief, holding that no equal protection violation occurred.

criminal lawcivil rights