Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2020, Bryce D. Hovannisian and Lindsay E. Hovannisian purchased several tax-defaulted properties at a tax sale from the City of Fresno. Prior to the sale, the City had recorded special assessments for nuisance abatement costs and unpaid penalties against these properties. After the purchase, the County of Fresno issued tax bills to the appellants, which included these special assessments. The appellants sought to pay only the portion of the tax bills excluding the special assessments, arguing that the tax sale should have removed these liens. The County rejected their partial payments, leading the appellants to sue the City and the County to quiet title to the properties.The Superior Court of Fresno County sustained three separate demurrers filed by the City and the County, asserting that Revenue and Taxation Code section 4807 barred the suit as it impeded tax collection. The court granted leave to amend after the first two demurrers but denied it after the third. The court found that the appellants were required to pay the taxes and then seek a refund, rather than challenging the assessments prepayment.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's ruling. The appellate court held that the special assessments were collected at the same time and in the same manner as county taxes, thus falling under the definition of "taxes" in section 4801. Consequently, section 4807 barred the appellants' prepayment suit. The court also found that the appellants had an adequate remedy at law through a refund action, which precluded them from seeking equitable relief. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, and the appellants were directed to pay the taxes and seek a refund if necessary. View "Hovannisian v. City of Fresno" on Justia Law

Eric Woolard and Breonna Hall, residents of Greenhouse Condominiums, were involved in a physical altercation with their neighbors, Eric Smith and Stacy Thorne, in December 2019. Smith and Thorne sued Woolard, Hall, and Regent Real Estate Services, Inc. (Regent), the management company, for negligence and other claims. Woolard and Hall filed a cross-complaint against Regent and Greenhouse Community Association (Greenhouse), alleging negligence and other claims, asserting that Regent and Greenhouse failed to address ongoing harassment by neighbors, which led to the altercation.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of Regent and Greenhouse, finding no duty of care owed by them to intervene in the neighbor dispute or prevent the altercation. Woolard and Hall's motions to disqualify the trial judge were denied, and they did not seek writ review of these rulings.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Regent and Greenhouse had no duty to intervene in the neighbor dispute or prevent the altercation. The court found that Woolard and Hall failed to establish a legal duty of care breached by Regent and Greenhouse. Additionally, the court noted that claims of housing discrimination were not supported by evidence and were not properly raised as a separate cause of action. The court also held that the disqualification motions were not reviewable on appeal. The judgment in favor of Regent and Greenhouse was affirmed, and they were entitled to their costs on appeal. View "Woolard v. Regent Real Estate Services" on Justia Law

Laura Lazar sued real estate brokers Lynette Bishop, Shen Shulz, Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., and Shen Realty, Inc. for breach of fiduciary duty related to the sale of her father's Malibu house. Lazar's father, Daniel Gottlieb, had assigned his causes of action to her. The complaint alleged that the brokers failed to disclose a dual agency and did not work to obtain the highest possible sale price, resulting in a sale price significantly lower than the house's value.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Lazar lacked standing to sue because the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty was not assignable under Civil Code section 954. The court likened the relationship between a real estate broker and client to that of an attorney and client, which involves a highly personal and confidential relationship, making such claims nonassignable. Lazar appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that a cause of action for breach of a real estate broker’s fiduciary duties, which seeks only damages related to property rights and pecuniary interests, is assignable. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to consider the remaining grounds argued in the defendants' motion. The appellate court found that the transactional nature of the broker-client relationship, unlike the attorney-client relationship, does not involve highly personalized rights of recovery, and thus, the claim is assignable. View "Lazar v. Bishop" on Justia Law

The case involves a monetary dispute between a mother (defendant) and her daughter (plaintiff). The daughter sued her mother and obtained a money judgment. During enforcement proceedings, the mother tendered the judgment amount, prejudgment interest, and interest accrued on a bank account in Shanghai. The dispute centers on whether the mother fully satisfied the judgment.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found that the mother had tendered the full amount owed and granted her motion to require the daughter to acknowledge full satisfaction of the judgment. The daughter appealed, arguing there was no competent evidence to substantiate the interest amount accrued on the Shanghai bank account and that the court abused its discretion by not enforcing an order for a judgment debtor’s examination of the mother. She also complained about a comment by the trial court that she claimed offended due process.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court found no merit in the daughter’s contentions. It held that there was sufficient evidence to conclude the interest was fully paid, noting that the trial court was entitled to consider the totality of the circumstances. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s handling of the debtor examination and rejected the claim of judicial bias based on the court’s comment. The court affirmed the trial court’s order, concluding that the mother had satisfied the judgment and awarded her mandatory attorney fees. View "Merrick v. Lau" on Justia Law

Maritza Zavala filed a lawsuit against Hyundai Motor America (HMA) under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging that HMA failed to honor its warranty obligations for a vehicle she purchased in 2016. After prevailing at trial, Zavala was awarded $23,122.44 in damages. The trial court also granted Zavala’s motion for attorney fees and ruled on the parties’ competing motions to tax costs, resulting in a judgment in favor of Zavala for $276,104.61 in attorney fees and costs.The trial court concluded that HMA’s offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 was invalid for cost shifting because it contained two options: a $65,000 payment and a statutory option that was deemed too vague. The court found that the statutory option lacked specificity, making the entire offer invalid.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. It determined that the $65,000 option was sufficiently specific and certain to trigger cost shifting under section 998, even though the statutory option was not. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred by not separately considering the validity of the two options. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s orders on Zavala’s motion for attorney fees and the parties’ motions to tax costs, as well as the judgment based on those orders. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs on appeal. View "Zavala v. Hyundai Motor America" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, David Yaffee, was awarded $3,299,455 in damages by a jury for past and future economic earnings and noneconomic loss due to injuries sustained when his vehicle was rear-ended by a truck driven by Joseph Skeen, who was employed by KLS Transportation, Inc. The accident occurred in 2015, and Yaffee experienced significant medical issues, including back pain and leg tingling, leading to multiple medical treatments and surgeries.The Superior Court of Sacramento County entered a judgment on the jury's verdict, which included awards for past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, and noneconomic damages. Defendants, including National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, challenged the awards on several grounds, including the reasonableness of past medical expenses, the speculative nature of future medical expenses, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting lost earnings.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had erred in its interpretation of the Hospital Lien Act (HLA) regarding the measure of past medical damages, leading to the improper admission of evidence on the reasonable value of services. The court concluded that the HLA only applies to services provided while the patient remains in the hospital or affiliated facility following emergency services. Consequently, the award for past medical expenses was reversed.The court also found that the award for future medical expenses was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the speculative nature of the need for a dorsal root ganglion stimulator. The court reversed the award for future medical expenses and remanded for a new trial on this issue.The awards for past and future lost earnings were upheld, as the court found sufficient evidence supporting the jury's findings. The award for future noneconomic damages was also upheld, as the evidence established a reasonable certainty of future pain and suffering.The court vacated the award for costs and prejudgment interest, as these were based on the reversed portions of the judgment. The case was remanded for a new trial on the issues of past and future medical expenses. View "Yaffee v. Skeen" on Justia Law

Harold Winston, an African-American male with over 30 years of service, sued his employer, the County of Los Angeles, alleging race-based discrimination, retaliation, and failure to maintain a discrimination-free environment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. While the case was pending, section 1102.5 was amended to allow courts to award reasonable attorney fees to prevailing whistleblower plaintiffs. After the jury found in Winston’s favor on his retaliation claim under section 1102.5, he filed a motion for attorney fees based on the new provision.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Winston’s motion for attorney fees, ruling that the fee provision did not apply retroactively to his case, which was filed in 2019 before the amendment took effect. The court found no legislative intent supporting retroactive application and noted that Winston did not prevail on his FEHA claims, which could have provided a basis for attorney fees.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that a new statute authorizing an award of attorney fees applies to actions pending on the statute’s effective date. The court cited case precedent establishing that newly enacted attorney fee provisions are procedural and apply to pending litigation. The court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to determine the appropriateness and reasonableness of Winston’s fee request. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Winston v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

LCPFV, LLC owned a warehouse with a faulty sewer pipe and hired Rapid Plumbing to fix it for $47,883.40. Rapid's work was unsatisfactory, so LCPFV hired another plumber for $44,077 to redo the job. LCPFV sued Rapid, its employee Marco Lopez, and the owner Abbas Pournahavandi. Rapid initially responded but later defaulted. LCPFV sought a default judgment of $1,081,263.80, including $308,376.75 in attorney fees and $500,000 in punitive damages. The trial court awarded a default judgment of $120,319.22, including attorney fees and other costs, and $11,852.90 in sanctions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, presided by Judge Mark V. Mooney, reviewed the case. The court rejected LCPFV's excessive default judgment request and awarded a more reasonable sum. The court also denied LCPFV's motion for additional sanctions and reduced the attorney fee request significantly, citing the simplicity of the case and the lack of opposition from the defendants.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, agreeing that the trial court acted appropriately as a gatekeeper in scrutinizing the default judgment package. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the use of requests for admissions as evidence of fraud, reduce the attorney fee award, and limit the sanctions. The court also agreed with the trial court's decision to award prejudgment interest from the date of the lawsuit filing rather than from the date of payment to Rapid.The main holding is that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding a reasonable default judgment, reducing attorney fees, and limiting sanctions, while ensuring that only appropriate claims were granted. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in all respects. View "LCPFV v. Somatdary Inc." on Justia Law

Aleksia Lindsay filed an amended class action complaint against Patenaude & Felix, APC, and Transworld Systems Inc., alleging unfair debt collection practices. Lindsay had defaulted on $60,000 in student loans, and after receiving incomplete and inaccurate information from Transworld, Patenaude initiated two debt collection lawsuits against her. Lindsay later discovered that both entities had a history of unethical collection practices, leading to actions by various regulatory bodies. After the lawsuits against her were dismissed, Lindsay received another demand for payment and subsequently filed the class action complaint.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County struck Lindsay's complaint, relying on the anti-SLAPP law, and ruled that the public interest exception did not apply. Lindsay argued that the trial court erred in this decision. The trial court concluded that although the three conditions of the public interest exception were met, the action was not brought solely in the public interest because Lindsay sought damages.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that the action was brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public, as the relief sought by Lindsay was identical to that sought for the plaintiff class. The court also found that seeking damages did not preclude the application of the public interest exception. The court concluded that the action met all three conditions of the public interest exception: it did not seek greater or different relief, it would enforce an important right affecting the public interest and confer a significant benefit, and private enforcement was necessary and placed a disproportionate financial burden on Lindsay.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, exempting Lindsay's action from the anti-SLAPP law and entitling her to costs on appeal. View "Lindsay v. Patenaude & Felix" on Justia Law

JHVS Group, LLC and its members, Jasanjot Singh and Harshana Kaur, purchased a 66.4-acre pistachio orchard from Shawn Slate and Dina Slate for approximately $2.6 million. The Slates agreed to carry a loan for $1,889,600, and JHVS made a $700,000 down payment. The agreement included provisions for interest payments and additional payments coinciding with expected crop payments. JHVS alleged that the Slates and their brokers, Randy Hayer and SVN Executive Commercial Advisors, misrepresented material facts about the property, including water rights and the value of the 2022 crop. JHVS claimed the actual value of the crop was significantly lower than represented, and they fell behind on payments, leading the Slates to record a notice of default.JHVS filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Madera County, raising seven causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, rescission based on fraud or mutual mistake, and injunctive relief to stop the foreclosure process. JHVS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale, arguing that the Slates and Hayer had lied about water restrictions and misrepresented the crop's value. The trial court granted the preliminary injunction after the defendants did not appear or file a response.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court lacked fundamental jurisdiction over the Slates because they were never served with the summons and complaint. The appellate court determined that the trial court's order was void as to the Slates due to the lack of proper service and reversed the preliminary injunction order with respect to the Slates. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "JHVS Group, LLC v. Slate" on Justia Law