Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff San Diegans for Open Government (SDOG) submitted a public records request to City of San Diego for all e-mail communications pertaining to City's official business sent to or from the San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith's personal e-mail account during certain time periods. City refused to produce any e-mail communications, stating they did not qualify as public records. SDOG filed this verified action after confirming City would not produce any responsive records. The operative pleading claimed a violation of the California Public Records Act and sought declaratory relief against defendants to compel disclosure of the e-mails. SDOG also alleged a cause of action under section Government Code 526a for taxpayer waste. SDOG ultimately dismissed the waste cause of action with prejudice. The trial court issued a judgment in favor of SDOG on its claim under the Act and granted SDOG declaratory relief against City. Third party, League of California Cities, subsequently petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate under the Act challenging the trial court's order. The Court of Appeal granted the petition and remanded the matter for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court determined SDOG to be the prevailing party under the Act and awarded it attorney fees and costs. The court also denied City's request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. City timely appealed both orders. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the current version of section 128.5 applied to any case pending as of its effective date; a party filing a sanctions motion under section 128.5 did not need to comply with section 128.7, subdivision (c)(1) (the safe harbor waiting period); and (3) the legal standard in evaluating a request for sanctions under section 128.5 was whether the challenged conduct was objectively unreasonable. The Court reversed the trial court's order denying sanctions and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the trial court's order finding plaintiff to be the prevailing party and awarding it attorney fees and costs. View "San Diegans for Open Govt. v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

This case arose when petitioner challenged his conviction for failing to stop at a red light by arguing that the city failed to comply with the Vehicle Code. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion seeking attorney's fees which the trial court denied. The Appellate Division dismissed petitioner's appeal. Petitioner now seeks review of the dismissal and denial of his alternative request to treat his defective appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. The court denied the petition and agreed with the Appellate Division's determination that the order of the trial court denying petitioner's request for attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (the private attorney general statute) is not appealable under Penal Code section 1466, subdivision (b)(2), because the order does not affect petitioner's substantial rights. The court also concluded that petitioner fails to establish that any exceptional circumstances required the Appellate Division to treat his appeal as a petition for extraordinary relief. View "Gray v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

222 plaintiffs, homeowners, in 22 related mass actions against various financial institutions and mortgage loan servicers, appeal from an order dismissing those actions after the trial court sustained without leave to amend defendants' demurrers to an “omnibus” third amended complaint. Each mass action involves numerous plaintiffs whose loans originated with and/or were serviced by a single defendant or related affiliates. The omnibus complaint asserted seven causes of action. On appeal, plaintiffs challenge only the trial court's denial of their request for leave to amend their unfair business practices cause of action (the UCL claim) to add factual allegations to support an entirely different theory that was suggested in seven sentences of the 29-page complaint. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint because they failed to show that their proposed additional facts are sufficient to state a UCL claim. Moreover, even if their proposed additional facts were sufficient, they clearly demonstrate that the claim could not be prosecuted as a mass action because the 222 plaintiffs' claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 378. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Aghaji v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

It was undisputed defendant-respondent Diane Harkey met Code of Civil Procedure section 1032’s definition of a prevailing party. Plaintiffs-appellants however, contended the trial court erred in awarding Harkey her costs because she was united in interest and shared costs with other defendants who did not satisfy the statutory definition. In support, Plaintiffs relied on cases applying the so-called unity of interest exception, which provided a trial court with discretion to deny prevailing party status to a defendant who otherwise would be entitled to recover costs as a matter of right when that defendant is united in interest with, and asserted the same defenses in the same answer as, other defendants who did not prevail and are not entitled to recover their costs. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that these cases were no longer controlling, and therefore affirmed the trial court’s determination Harkey was a prevailing party entitled to recover costs as a matter of right. View "Charton v. Harkey" on Justia Law

In this action for wrongful foreclosure, the homeowner, Monica Sciarratta, alleged that as a result of a void assignment of her promissory note and deed of trust, the entity that conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on her home had no interest in either the underlying debt or the subject property. In Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., (62 Cal.4th 919 (2016)), the California Supreme Court held that the homeowner has standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure. However, Yvanova did not address "any of the substantive elements of the wrongful foreclosure tort," and in particular did not address "prejudice . . . as an element of wrongful foreclosure." The issue this case presented was the question of "prejudice" left open in Yvanova: The Court of Appeal found that policy considerations that drove the standing analysis in Yvanova compelled a similar result in this case. "[A] homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so -by those facts alone- sustains prejudice or harm sufficient to constitute a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. When a non-debtholder forecloses, a homeowner is harmed by losing her home to an entity with no legal right to take it. Therefore under those circumstances, the void assignment is the proximate cause of actual injury and all that is required to be alleged to satisfy the element of prejudice or harm in a wrongful foreclosure cause of action." The opposite rule, urged by defendants in this case, would allow an entity to foreclose with impunity on homes that were worth less than the amount of the debt, even if there were no legal justification whatsoever for the foreclosure. "The potential consequences of wrongfully evicting homeowners are too severe to allow such a result." The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court erroneously sustained a demurrer to Sciarratta's first amended complaint without leave to amend, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank" on Justia Law

Coblentz, a law firm partner, died in 2010. Coblentz served for many years as a trustee for the McClatchy Trust before resigning in 2009. In 2012, one of the Trust’s beneficiaries filed a Petition for Relief from Breach of Trust under Probate Code 17200(a), seeking damages for alleged asset mismanagement. The petition included an allegation that “Petitioner is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Respondents named herein as Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore names these Respondents by such fictitious names." An amended petition, attempting to add the Firm as a named defendant, alleged that after reading an SEC filing dated 2004, plaintiff became aware that Coblentz‘s actions as trustee had been undertaken in his capacity as a partner in the Firm, making the Firm vicariously liable. The Firm argued the beneficiary was not entitled to use the Doe defendant procedure because he had known the Firm‘s identity and the facts allegedly giving rise to its liability when the original petition was filed and that the claims were time-barred. The trial court quashed service, reasoning that plaintiff knew all the relevant facts before filing the original petition. The court of appeal affirmed. View "McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP" on Justia Law

In 2004, Brown obtained a $450,000 loan secured by a deed of trust recorded against her Oakland property, identifying Washington Mutual as the lender and beneficiary and CRC as the trustee. Washington Mutual failed in 2008. The FDIC was appointed its receiver and sold Chase many of the assets and liabilities (P&A Agreement). In 2011, CRC recorded a notice of default as trustee for Chase, claiming that Brown was in arrears by $60,984.42. Chase then assigned the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank; CRC remained as the trustee and recorded a notice of sale. In 2012, Brown filed the first of three lawsuits challenging the foreclosure. In 2013, CRC executed a third notice of sale. Two days later, Brown filed her third lawsuit, alleging that the assignment to Deutsche Bank was invalid and the foreclosure proceedings were initiated without authority. The trial court granted a request for judicial notice, which covered foreclosure-related documents, filings from the earlier lawsuits, and the P&A Agreement, then dismissed without leave to amend. The court of appeal affirmed. Brown‟s contention that Deutsche Bank and CRC lacked authority to enforce the deed of trust was contradicted by matters subject to judicial notice. View "Brown v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co." on Justia Law

In 2007, the Sonoma County project’s owner sued Hearn, the general contractor, Second Generation, the roofer, and other subcontractors for design and construction defects. Hearn cross-complained against Second Generation and others. In 2009, Hearn assigned its interests under its subcontracts to two insurers, North American and RSUI. Hearn then settled with the owner and all but two subcontractors, one of which was Second Generation. Hearn filed an amended cross-complaint, purportedly in the name of the insurers, against those subcontractors, adding breach of a contractual obligation to obtain insurance and seeking equitable contribution for Hearn’s defense costs premised on a breach of that duty. In 2013, the court dismissed the cross-complaint against Second Generation on procedural grounds, awarded $30,256.79 in costs and granted prevailing party attorney fees of $179,119. Second Generation moved to amend the orders to name North American as a judgment debtor owing the amounts awarded against Hearn. The trial court denied the motion, stating: Hearn remains the only proper party and that the subcontractor’s exclusive remedy was to pursue a separate action against Hearn’s insurers. The court of appeal reversed, finding that, after the assignment, Hearn was “out of this case.” View "Hearn Pac. Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant filed a personal injury suit after she was hurt in a hay bale accident. In this case, the trial court dismissed with prejudice the complaint for personal injuries during jury trial as a sanction for repeated violations of its orders excluding hearsay and opinion testimony. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in granting the terminating sanction and erred when it granted respondents' motions in limine. Because the orders in limine did not have the effect of granting a nonsuit or judgment on the pleadings, the court determined that the abuse of discretion standard of review applies. In this case, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it made orders excluding evidence that were tantamount to a nonsuit and when it granted the terminating sanction where appellant could not, and did not, demonstrate her opinions about the appearance of hay bales had any rational basis. The trial court also correctly granted respondents' Motion in Limine No. 4, to exclude hearsay regarding the source of the hay bales. The trial court also correctly excluded appellant's proffered testimony that she saw Todd's delivery person with a delivery "ticket" or receipt identifying Berrington as the source of the hay bale. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in issuing the terminating sanction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Osborne v. Todd Farm Serv." on Justia Law

Li is a 78-year-old Chinese-American, with limited English and experience with the legal system. Attorney Yan became a member of the bar in 2008. Ignoring blatant conflicts of interest, beginning in 2007, Yan advised and represented Li in a matter involving a contract in which Yan was the obligor and Li was the assignee. In 2010 Li sued, alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unlawful business practices, breach of contract, and fraud. The court awarded $254,411.06, plus prejudgment interest. Following posttrial proceedings, during which the California Bar began disciplinary proceedings, the judge filed an amended judgment awarding Li $552,412.30, including $149,667.29 in prejudgment interest. After an unsuccessful appeal by Yan, Li’s new attorney began efforts to collect the judgment. During examination of Yan, as a judgment debtor, the court upheld service of a subpoena duces tecum by mail (Yan was unable to be located for personal service) and denied Yan’s claim of privilege with respect to his tax returns. The court of appeal affirmed, stating that “enough is enough” and awarding Li costs. View "Li v. Yan" on Justia Law