Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case involves Clifford Alan Dilbert, who filed petitions for clemency and/or commutation of his prison sentence with the Governor's office in 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2021. Dilbert claimed that he had not received any communication from the Governor's office regarding the processing of his clemency petition. He sought a writ of mandate to compel Governor Gavin Newsom to process his applications and reapplications for clemency/commutation, render a decision on those applications, and notify him of the decision in a timely manner.The Superior Court of Sacramento County sustained the Governor’s demurrer to the petition without leave to amend. The court concluded that Dilbert does not have a due process right to have his applications processed within a particular time frame and the law imposes no duty to process clemency applications within a particular time frame. Dilbert appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court found that neither the California Constitution nor any provision of Penal Code sections 4800 to 4813 contains an express requirement that the Governor process clemency applications within a specified time frame. The court also rejected Dilbert's argument that the application instructions created an obligation for the Governor to grant discretionary clemency within a certain amount of time. The court concluded that Dilbert does not have a due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution to have his application processed within a certain time frame. View "Dilbert v. Newsom" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the City of Santa Cruz (City) and the County of Santa Cruz (County) over the interpretation of the City's claim presentation ordinance. The County sued the City for damages exceeding $1.2 million, alleging that the City's failure to maintain and manage a certain area led to emergency repairs. The County argued that it was not required to present a claim to the City before filing the lawsuit, as per the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.). The City, however, demurred, arguing that the County failed to present a claim directly to the City as required by the City’s claim presentation ordinance (Santa Cruz Mun. Code, § 1.14.010).The trial court sustained in part and overruled in part the City’s demurrer, rejecting the City's argument that the County was required to present a claim before filing the lawsuit. The court reasoned that the City’s ordinance applies to claims that are “not governed by” section 905 (Santa Cruz Mun. Code, § 1.14.010), and the County’s claim against the City is governed by section 905, which provides an exception to the claims presentation requirement for the County’s claim against the City.The City appealed, arguing that its ordinance, which applies to claims “not governed by” section 905, must be interpreted as applying to claims “excepted” from section 905. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District agreed with the City's interpretation. The court concluded that the trial court erred in determining that the County was not required to comply with the claim presentation ordinance before filing its lawsuit against the City. The court directed the trial court to vacate its demurrer order, to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer, and to decide in the first instance whether the County should be granted leave to amend. View "City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Taylor C., who was declared a ward of the court at the age of 14. After his wardship ended, Taylor successfully moved to dismiss his wardship petitions under the Welfare and Institutions Code section 782. He then sought to seal his juvenile court records. However, the juvenile court denied his request, citing his prior adjudications for committing forcible lewd conduct, which made his records ineligible for sealing under section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(F). Taylor appealed, arguing that the dismissal of his wardship petitions erased the adjudication of his offenses as if they never existed.The lower court had granted Taylor's motion to dismiss his wardship petitions, finding that the interests of justice and Taylor's welfare warranted dismissal and that he was no longer in need of rehabilitation. However, it denied his motion to seal his juvenile court records, citing the prohibition in subdivision (a)(1)(F) of section 781 on sealing records relating to his forcible lewd conduct offenses.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the dismissal of a juvenile petition under section 782 does not obviate the prohibition on sealing records under section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(F) in cases involving certain delineated offenses. The court found that Taylor's records were ineligible for sealing because section 782, subdivision (e) provides that dismissal of a petition does not alone constitute a sealing of records and section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(F), precludes sealing due to the forcible lewd conduct offenses. View "In re Taylor C." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Joseph Gazal, donated over $1 million to purchase a car and a home for a destitute family. He was inspired to make this donation after hearing a homily delivered by defendant Carlos Echeverry, a deacon at his church. Gazal brought a lawsuit against Echeverry and his wife, Jessica Echeverry, as well as SOFESA, Inc., a nonprofit founded and led by Jessica Echeverry. Gazal claimed he was deceived into believing the car and house would be purchased for and titled to the destitute family, when in fact they were bought and titled to SOFESA.The defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, asserting that the homily and following conversations were protected speech. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the complaint did not rest on protected speech, but rather on private conduct and speech not directed at a wide public audience. Additionally, the court found that the causes of action arose from further communications that took place weeks after the homily.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that while the homily could be considered protected speech, the plaintiff's claims did not arise from the homily but rather from the alleged misconduct that occurred after its delivery. The court also found that the private discussions following the homily did not qualify for anti-SLAPP protection as they did not contribute to a public conversation on the issue of homelessness. Furthermore, the court denied a motion for sanctions filed by the plaintiff. View "Gazal v. Echeverry" on Justia Law

This case involves Stewart Johnston who was the defendant, cross-complainant, and appellant, against BTHHM Berkeley, LLC, PNG Berkeley, LLC, Michail Family 2004 Living Trust, Bianca Blesching, Scot Hawkins (collectively, BTHHM), and Holda Novelo and Landmark Real Estate Management, Inc. (collectively, Landmark). Johnston owned a property which he was to lease to BTHHM for a cannabis dispensary once permits were granted by the City of Berkeley. However, after the city approved the permit, Johnston refused to deliver possession of the property to BTHHM, leading to a lawsuit by BTHHM against Johnston.Following mediation, a two-page term sheet titled “Settlement Term Sheet Agreement” was signed by all parties. Johnston later wished to withdraw from the agreement. BTHHM and Landmark moved to enforce the term sheet pursuant to section 664.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the court granted. Johnston failed to make the payments required by the enforcement orders. The court granted BTHHM's motion for entry of judgment, awarded prejudgment interest to BTHHM, entered judgment against Johnston, and dismissed his cross-complaint with prejudice.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Four reversed the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest but otherwise affirmed the decision. The court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the term sheet’s language evinces the parties’ mutual agreement to settle the case according to its terms. However, the court concluded that the award of prejudgment interest was unauthorized as it differed materially from the terms of the parties’ agreement. View "BTHHM Berkeley, LLC v. Johnston" on Justia Law

In 2014, plaintiffs Medallion Film LLC and Pelican Point Capital Partners entered into a consulting fee agreement with Clarius Capital Group, managed by William Sadleir. The agreement stipulated that Medallion Film and Pelican Point would assist Clarius in obtaining funding for film projects, and Clarius would pay them a portion of any funding obtained. However, it is alleged that Sadleir dissolved Clarius and its affiliate and subsidiary entities in 2015 and formed a new set of corporate entities under the name Aviron with the assistance of the law firm Loeb & Loeb.The plaintiffs allege that Sadleir controlled both the Clarius and Aviron entities and transferred Clarius’s assets to the Aviron entities. Aviron later obtained a loan for its film projects from BlackRock, which Medallion Film and Pelican Point claim they were entitled to a portion of under their agreement with Clarius. However, Sadleir denied any affiliation between Aviron and Clarius and said he was solely an employee of Aviron.The plaintiffs sued Loeb & Loeb in December 2021, alleging causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and violating California Business and Professions Code section 17200. Loeb & Loeb filed a special motion to strike the first amended complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation under section 425.16. The trial court granted the special motion to strike.However, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight vacated the judgment, reversed the order granting the special motion to strike, and remanded with directions to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Medallion Film LLC v. Loeb & Loeb LLP" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Dr. R. Michael Williams, a board-certified oncologist, and several defendants, including Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (DMCM) and various associated individuals. After a deterioration in their professional relationship, Williams alleged that the defendants acted to limit his medical practice and restrict his hospital privileges, affecting his ability to treat patients. Williams filed multiple lawsuits against the defendants, the second of which is the subject of this appeal.The trial court granted two anti-SLAPP motions in favor of the defendants, finding that Williams' claims arose from their protected activity and that Williams failed to establish a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court also awarded the defendants their attorney fees. Williams appealed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the awards of attorney fees.The court of appeal reversed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the award of attorney fees, finding that the trial court erred in its application of the anti-SLAPP statute. The court distinguished between the factual allegations that form the basis of Williams' claims and the defendants' protected activities, concluding that not all of the claims in the complaint arose from protected activity. As such, not all of Williams' claims were subject to the anti-SLAPP statute and the defendants were not entitled to attorney fees. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision. View "Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto" on Justia Law

The appellant, Elinton Gramajo, was a pizza delivery driver for Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc. and other defendants, and sued them for Labor Code violations regarding unpaid minimum and overtime wages. After several years of litigation, a jury trial awarded Gramajo $7,659.93. Gramajo then requested attorney fees of $296,920 and costs of $26,932.84 under Labor Code section 1194(a), which allows prevailing employees to recover reasonable litigation costs, including attorney fees. The trial court, however, denied these requests, arguing that Gramajo’s counsel had excessively litigated the case, and that the requested fees and costs were disproportionately high compared to Gramajo’s limited trial success.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight disagreed with the trial court. The court held that employees who win actions for unpaid minimum and overtime wages are entitled to reasonable litigation costs under Labor Code section 1194(a), regardless of the amount recovered. The court stressed that Gramajo was entitled to his reasonable fees and costs, and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine a reasonable fee and cost award. The court did not express an opinion on the reasonableness of Gramajo’s requests for litigation costs. View "Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the court dealt with the suspension and subsequent resignation of a licensed obstetrician and gynecologist, Plaintiff Dr. Vardui Asiryan, from the defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center and its Medical Staff. The Medical Staff suspended Asiryan’s privileges at the hospital without holding a hearing or giving her prior notice. Asiryan sued both entities, alleging they failed to comply with statutory and common law procedural requirements in connection with suspending her privileges at the hospital. She further claimed that the Medical Staff lied to her regarding their obligations to report her suspension and resignation to the state licensing board.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, held that the trial court correctly concluded that the Business and Professions Code is the sole source of procedural protections in connection with hospital peer review, and that the common law doctrine of fair procedure does not supplement those protections with additional guarantees. Therefore, the court correctly granted the nonsuit on Asiryan’s common law peer review claims and correctly rejected her proposed jury instructions regarding peer review.As for the court's order awarding attorney fees, the Court of Appeal held that given the court’s rulings denying certain portions of defendants’ summary judgment and nonsuit motions, a hypothetical reasonable attorney could have deemed Asiryan’s peer review claims against the Medical Staff tenable and reasonably decided to take them to trial. This same logic does not apply to the fees awarded to GAMC, because the court disposed of the claims against GAMC on summary judgment. The Court of Appeal therefore reversed the court’s fee order to the extent it awards fees to the Medical Staff, but affirmed the order as it applies to GAMC. View "Asiryan v. Medical Staff of Glendale Adventist Medical Center" on Justia Law

The appellant, Samantha Wood, sought to legally change her name to Candi Bimbo Doll, an identity she had pursued for over a decade. Despite no opposition to her request, the trial judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court denied Wood's petition based on the judge's interpretation of the term "bimbo" as inherently offensive. The judge derived this interpretation from various sources, including the Oxford English Dictionary, a law review article, and trends on the social media platform, TikTok.Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Two reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by denying Wood's petition for a name change. The court established that the trial court had incorrectly applied the principle that a name change may be denied only upon a "substantial reason".The appellate court determined that the term "bimbo" was not universally offensive or vulgar. They found that the term was being reclaimed and used as a means of empowerment in certain contexts, including on TikTok. The court also highlighted that the term did not appear to cause any confusion, as evidenced by its use in various business names and personalized license plates.Consequently, the court concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion by not adhering to the applicable legal principles that favor granting a name change, and by failing to identify substantial and principled reasons for denying the name change. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant Wood's petition for a name change. View "Wood v. S.F. Superior Court" on Justia Law