Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In "Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court," (1 Cal.5th 151 (Property Reserve I- 2016)), the California Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeals decision and remanded the matter for the appellate court to consider issues not addressed. The Department of Water Resources petitioned the trial court for orders authorizing it to enter onto various properties to conduct precondemnation studies and surveys. Before the trial court convened a hearing on the matter, the landowners requested to conduct discovery. The trial court denied the request, ruling the proceeding was exempt from discovery. The landowners also objected to the Department not naming allegedly indispensable parties. The trial court held the rules governing indispensable parties did not apply to this matter, but it ordered the parties to notify all the persons and entities the landowners claimed were indispensable parties. The landowners both petitioned for writ relief against, and appealed the trial court’s award of an entry order, challenging the constitutionality of the precondemnation entry statutes and attacking the court’s decisions to deny discovery and not order the joinder of indispensable parties. "Property Reserve I" resolved the constitutional issues, but the high court directed the Court of Appeal to address the landowners’ claims against the trial court’s rulings on discovery and indispensable parties. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in holding the proceeding was exempt from discovery, but the Court also found the landowners did not show prejudicial error. The Court also concluded the landowners’ contention regarding indispensable parties was moot, because the trial court gave the landowners all of the relief they sought and which the Court could have provided. View "Property Reserve, Inc. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In 2012, B.C., age 30, suffered cardiac arrest and brain damage from the use of methamphetamine and alcohol. She initially lived with and was cared for by her mother. When her mother died, B.C. inherited $450,000. She also received disability payments. Although she had limited cognitive function, she subsequently married Jesse, with whom she had been “partying” at the time of her cardiac arrest. In 2014, B.C.’s aunt, C.S., sought appointment as probate conservator. Through counsel, B.C. opposed the petition. Jesse participated in hiring and advising the attorney. The court appointed the Ventura County Public Defender to represent B.C. An appointed conservator for B.C.’s estate sought reimbursement of $30,000, for disability benefits that Jesse had diverted to himself. Jesse has no assets and is responsible for five children. After a bench trial, the court appointed C.S., Prob. Code 1800. The court of appeal affirmed. Probate conservatorships do not require a personal waiver of the right to a jury trial because the proceedings pose no threat of confinement and are conducted according to the law relating to civil actions, including trial by jury if demanded by the proposed conservatee. B.C.’s attorney had authority to waive a jury trial on her behalf, even if the court failed to recite that B.C. had a right to a jury. The record supports the finding that B.C. cannot take care of her own needs, nor can her husband be trusted to do so. View "Conservatorship of B.C." on Justia Law

The California Supreme Court's narrow ruling on a borrower's standing to challenge the validity of the chain of assignments involved in the securitization of her loans in "Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp." (62 Cal.4th 919 (2016)) clarified what was the dispositive issue in this appeal, but expressly did not decide how to resolve it. In "Yvanova," the Court held a borrower had standing to allege that an assignment of the promissory note and deed of trust to the foreclosing party is void, not voidable; yet it did not decide whether a post-closing date transfer into a New York securitized trust is void or voidable. New York law, as interpreted by an overwhelming majority of New York, California, and federal courts, however, provided that defects in the securitization of loans can be ratified by the beneficiaries of the trusts established to hold the mortgage-backed securities and, as a result, the assignments are voidable. Following this precedent, the Court of Appeal concluded plaintiff Maria Mendoza did not have standing to challenge the alleged irregularities in the securitization of her loan. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal of the second amended complaint for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, and quiet title was affirmed. View "Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a 51-year-old African- and Latino-American, began working for CNN in 1996 and became a producer in 2000. In 2004, Janos became plaintiff‘s supervisor. Plaintiff received no further promotions. The final opening for which plaintiff applied was offered to a younger, Caucasian candidate with less experience. Plaintiff alleges that he repeatedly complained about CNN‘s failure to promote African-American men. In 2005 plaintiff made a written complaint to Janos. Allegedly in retaliation, Janos issued Plaintiff a “Written Warning Regarding Performance.” In 2010 plaintiff‘s wife began fertility treatments paid for by CNN-provided health insurance; plaintiff claims that the infertility constituted a disability under Government Code 12926(k). Plaintiff‘s wife had twins in 2013. Plaintiff took five weeks of paternity leave. Plaintiff alleges that upon plaintiff‘s return to work, Janos gave high-profile assignments to a younger Caucasian man with less experience than plaintiff. In 2014, plaintiff submitted a story to an editor, who expressed concern about similarity to another report. The editor informed Janos, who, without talking to plaintiff, decided not to publish the story. Janos initiated an audit of plaintiff‘s work and ultimately fired plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation. Defendants filed a special motion to strike all causes of action (Code of Civil Procedure, 425.16, anti-SLAPP motion), submitting evidence of plagiarism in plaintiff’s story. The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of the anti-SLAPP motion. This is a private employment discrimination and retaliation case, not an action to prevent defendants from exercising their First Amendment rights. Defendants may have a legitimate defense but the merits of that defense should be resolved through the normal litigation process, not at the initial phase of this action. View "Wilson v. Cable News Network Inc." on Justia Law

Ryan sued his former employer, NextG, alleging that NextG had breached a promise to grant him lucrative stock options as a condition of his employment. The case went to the jury with an “unclear special verdict form and unhelpful instructions.” The jury sustained two contract-based causes of action, but failed to find the value of the promised options, despite a directive on the verdict form that it do so. Instead it made a finding of the income plaintiff lost by entering the employment relationship, despite a directive obviating such a finding in light of the jury’s rejection of plaintiff’s tort causes of action. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial, and suggesting that declarations were necessary to determine “what the jury actually did.” The court of appeal reversed with instructions to grant a new trial. The court was fully empowered and obligated to make an independent assessment of the adequacy of the verdict, which was unmistakably unsound. If viewed as an award of tort damages, it had no foundation in law. If viewed as an award of contract damages, it had no foundation in fact. View "Ryan v. Crown Castle NG Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2008, while working as a narcotics detective, Riske reported two fellow officers for filing false reports and testified against them at an administrative hearing that ultimately resulted in their termination. Afterward, Riske’s colleagues refused to work with him. Riske retired in 2014. He sued the city, alleging retaliation based on his protected whistleblower activity by failing to assign or promote him to several positions. Riske filed a discovery motion, seeking to obtain records of the officers selected for the positions to which he had applied. Riske asserted the documents were necessary to show the city’s stated business reason for its promotions—the successful candidates were more qualified than Riske—was pretext for retaliation. The city claimed the officers’ personnel records were not subject to discovery because the officers were innocent third parties who had not witnessed or caused Riske’s injury. The superior court denied Riske’s motion. The court of appeal directed the superior court to vacate that order and to require the city to produce the reports for an in camera inspection and to then order production of all discoverable information. The statutory scheme is not limited to cases involving officers who either witnessed or committed misconduct. View "Riske v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

This action was brought by three members of the board of directors of the Friars Village Homeowners Association (FVHOA) against six other board members and the FVHOA manager but not against FVHOA itself (despite the fact the dispute focuses on the activities of the board and its governance of FVHOA and the Friars Village community). The Director defendants timely moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.163 to strike the complaint, which consisted of a single claim for declaratory relief. Director defendants argued the complaint was based on decisions and statements they made in duly noticed board meetings while conducting board business and, thus, involved acts or activities in furtherance of constitutionally protected activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion. In so doing, it ruled that the "only relief" sought by plaintiffs was a "determination of what [was] required under the HOA governing documents" and, as such, that plaintiffs' declaratory relief cause of action did not arise out of director defendants' "speech/petition rights." The court therefore never reached the issue of whether plaintiffs could satisfy their burden under subdivision (b)(1) of section 425.16 to establish a probability of success on their claim. The Court of Appeal independently concluded the trial court erred when it found the gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint did not involve protected activity under section 425.16. Furthermore, the Court concluded plaintiffs could not show a probability they would prevail on their claim. Therefore, the Court reversed the order denying the special motion to strike of director defendants and directed the trial court to grant that motion with respect to each such defendant. View "Lee v. Silveira" on Justia Law

Real parties in interest, Kevin Hicks et al., filed an action against petitioner Elliott Homes, Inc. (Elliott), the builder of their homes, seeking damages for construction defects. Elliott moved to stay the litigation until real parties in interest complied with the prelitigation procedure set forth in “SB 800” or “Right to Repair Act” (Act), Civil Code sections 895 through 945.5. Real parties in interest opposed the motion, arguing that the prelitigation procedure did not apply because they had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. The trial court denied Elliott’s motion for a stay, and Elliott petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate compelling the trial court to vacate its order, and enter a new order granting the motion for a stay. The Court issued an alternative writ of mandate and stayed the proceedings in the trial court. Elliott contended the trial court erred in concluding that real parties in interest did not need to comply with the prelitigation procedure set forth in the Act prior to filing the underlying action and in denying the motion to stay. The Court of Appeal granted the petition. View "Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Mazzaferro, a “vexatious litigant,” was replaced as trustee of a living trust. Mazzaferro’s son-in-law, Parisi, the conservator for the trust beneficiary, a dependent adult, alleged financial abuse and fraud by Mazzaferro. Parisi sought protection for himself and his wife and three adult children from a campaign of harassment by Mazzaferro, citing 21 litigation matters, all of which were resolved in Parisi‘s favor. Parisi noted Mazzaferro‘s harassment of Parisi‘s daughter at her workplace and by contacting her employer. Mazzaferro also wrote letters accusing Parisi of criminal activity and attempting to have Parisi, a probation officer, fired. Mazzaferro admitted writing the letters at issue, but insisted their contents were true, and denied that the incidents involving his granddaughter occurred. The judge made credibility findings, telling Mazzaferro, “I do not believe you,” and issued the requested restraining order. In the meantime, in separate proceedings, Mazzaferro unsuccessfully sought an elder abuse restraining order against Parisi; Mazzaferro was ordered to pay Parisi‘s attorney fees. Mazzaferro‘s application for permission, as a vexatious litigant, to appeal the restraining order was granted on July 24, 2015.9. Rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and allegations of prior restraint, the court of appeal remanded to the trial court for a more precise definition of the prohibited conduct. View "Parisi v. Mazzaferro" on Justia Law

McNair obtained a commercial driver’s license (CDL) in 2000 and began driving. McNair has a history of diabetes and cognitive deficits. While under the care of Department of Public Health (DPH) physicians, McNair signed forms, stating that his medical records would not be released without his written authorization, absent an articulated exception. One exception applied if the DPH was “permitted or required by law” to release the information. In 2002, Dr. Pope advised “serious caution" in recommending that the CDL be renewed. In 2004. Dr. Kim refused to certify McNair for a CDL. None of the other physicians would agree to certify him. Dr. Kim wrote a letter to support McNair's application for SSI disability benefits, stating her opinion,that he was not able to hold down any type of full-time employment. Later, Alameda County Transit hired McNair as a bus operator. After learning of his job and that McNair had applied for a certificate to drive school busses, Kim contacted the DMV. McNair’s CDL was temporarily revoked. He lost his job. McNair filed suit alleging breach of his medical privacy rights. The court of appeal affirmed summary adjudication, finding his intentional tort and breach of contract claims barred by the litigation privilege, Civil Code 47(b); both claims were based solely on the propriety of Kim‟s letter to the DMV. View "McNair v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law