Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Appellant Dr. Robert Fettgather appealed a trial court order denying his petition for writ of administrative mandamus. His petition challenged the revocation of his license to practice psychology by Respondent California Board of Psychology. The trial court denied Fettgather’s petition on the ground that the only relevant inquiry before the Board was whether Fettgather failed to comply with an order for an examination under Business and Professions Code section 820. The trial court also found that “[t]he evidence in the record unquestionably establishes that petitioner failed to submit to the examination that had been ordered in this case.” Fettgather argued he should have been permitted to challenge the merits of the section 820 order before he was required to comply with it. He also argued that revocation of his license pursuant to section 821 for his failure to undergo a section 820 examination was unlawful. After review, the Court of Appeal held the Board was not required to show good cause for a section 820 order nor was a licensee entitled to challenge the basis for the order before submitting to the required examination. "It follows that the question of good cause supporting such an order is not relevant to a revocation of Fettgather’s license for noncompliance with the section 820 order. This strikes the appropriate balance between the public and private interests." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "Fettgather v. Board of Psychology" on Justia Law

Cynthia Vargas appealed a court order awarding father Christopher Ross primary physical custody of their minor children. Vargas was awarded temporary custody while Ross was deployed overseas. Upon his return, the issue of the children’s custody went to trial. Mother and father both testified at trial and numerous family court services reports, along with the mediators’ recommendations, were admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of trial, the court said if it were ruling on “straight best interest analysis, what’s in the best interest of [the children], my ruling would be that mother should be the primary custodial parent." However, the court found the case law interpreted the military deployment presumption in Family Code section 3047 to mean the children would return to the father once he returned. Mother argued the trial court misinterpreted section 3047, and the Court of Appeal agreed. The trial court was directed to evaluate the evidence and issue a custody order based on the best interest of the children, and consistent with the Legislature’s intent and the express terms of section 3047. View "In re Marriage of Vargas & Ross" on Justia Law

H.C. a nonminor dependent of the juvenile court, appealed an order terminating her dependency case, contending the court erred by determining that H.C.'s marriage rendered her ineligible for nonminor dependency jurisdiction. H.C. contended the court erred by terminating her nonminor dependency case based on her marriage. The Court of Appeal found neither of the applicable statutes, state or federal, mentioned marriage. Rather, the statutes covered only a nonminor dependent's age, his or her relationship to the Agency, and his or her transitional living plan. A nonminor dependent's marriage does not necessarily affect any of those eligibility criteria. View "In re H.C." on Justia Law

A labor union and several employees sued an employer, alleging the employer failed to provide notice before ordering about 90 employees not to return to work for four to five weeks. Under a California law known as the California WARN Act, employers must provide 60 days' notice to affected employees before ordering a "mass layoff." The employer countered that the California WARN Act was inapplicable because its action was a temporary furlough and not a "mass layoff." All parties recognized there was no liability under the parallel federal WARN Act because the federal law applied to a temporary layoff only if the layoff "exceed[s] 6 months." On cross summary judgment/adjudication motions, the parties primarily raised the issue of whether the employer had a statutory duty to notify the affected employees even though the layoff was temporary, rather than permanent. The superior court concluded the California WARN Act applied; and therefore the employer owed a statutory notification duty to the affected workers. The court thus granted summary adjudication in plaintiffs' favor on this issue. The court then held a one-day bench trial on damages issues, the result of which was that judgment was entered in plaintiffs' favor, and awarded the workers $211,405 in backpay and lost pension benefits. On appeal, the employer contended the court erred in interpreting the California WARN Act as applying to temporary layoffs. Based on its analysis of the statutory language, statutory scheme, legislative history, federal WARN law, and policies underlying the California WARN Act, the Court of Appeal determined the employer had a duty to provide statutory notice under the particular circumstances of this case, even if the layoffs were not permanent and were for less than six months. View "Internat. Brotherhood of Boilermakers etc. v. NASSCO etc." on Justia Law

Husband Patrick Steiner was an active duty military service member and had a group life insurance policy issued under the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance Act of 1965 (the SGLIA). As part of a status-only dissolution judgment, Husband and Alicja Soczewko Steiner (Wife), stipulated to an order requiring Husband to maintain Wife as the beneficiary of all of Husband's current active duty survivor and/or death benefits pending further court order. Notwithstanding the stipulated order, Husband changed the beneficiary of his life insurance policy to Husband's sister, Mary Furman, who received the policy proceeds upon Husband's death. The court subsequently found applicable federal law preempted the stipulated order and Furman was entitled to the policy proceeds. Wife appealed, contending federal law did not preempt the stipulated order or, alternatively, the fraud exception to federal preemption applies. The Court of Appeal concluded to the contrary on both points and affirmed the order. View "Marriage of Steiner" on Justia Law

In this declaratory relief action, the trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry (the National Grange), declaring that property at issue in the underlying dispute belonged to the California State Grange when the National Grange revoked the California State Grange’s charter in 2013 belonged to a newly chartered California State Grange. At the annual convention of the National Grange in November 2010, an amendment to the National Grange’s by-laws was proposed to expand the National Master’s power to suspend or revoke the charter of a State Grange, allowing the National Master to take that action in various situations, including when “the State Grange is working in violation of the law and usages of the Order.” The Master of the National Grange, Edward Luttrell, ordered an investigation of Robert McFarland, then Master/President of the California State Grange, based on allegations that McFarland had engaged in various instances of misconduct. McFarland ordered the consolidation of two subordinate granges. At some point, McFarland was suspended and an Overseer was supposed to act in his place. McFarland refused to acknowledge the Overseer’s authority to act in his stead. Put to a vote of the State Grange, the Executive Committee refused to honor Luttrell’s suspension of McFarland, arguing the State Grange was a California corporation governed by California state law, Luttrell did not have the power to suspend either McFarland or the State Grange. The California State Grange did not appeal the suspension of its charter within the organization as allowed by the by-laws of the National Grange. This declaratory relief action followed. The Court of Appeal was persuaded that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the National Grange in this declaratory relief case. View "Nat. Grange of the Order etc. v. California Guild" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's determination that equitable estoppel did not apply to LAUSD's assertions of noncompliance with the Government Claims Act. In this case, plaintiffs filed suit against LASPD when an LASPD vehicle ran a red light and struck them. Upon learning that the vehicle was insured by LAUSD, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add LAUSD as a defendant. LAUSD moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act because no government claim was ever filed with LAUSD. The court held that plaintiffs presented evidence sufficient to permit a finding that LAUSD was estopped from asserting noncompliance with the Government Claims Act as a defense. View "Santos v. Los Angeles Unified School District" on Justia Law

The statutory transcription rates prescribed by Government Code sections 69950 and 69954 apply to any court reporter producing a transcript of a civil court proceeding, regardless of whether the reporter is employed by the superior court or privately retained by a party. In this putative class action, plaintiff appealed from a judgment entered in favor of defendant after the trial court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings for charging excessive court transcription fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and held that the trial court erred by concluding that the statutory rates apply only to official reporters employed by the court. View "Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters, Inc." on Justia Law

All Masonry & Landscape Supply (All Masonry) appealed a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to Oldcastle, the prevailing party in a breach of contract action. Oldcastle manufactured masonry and concrete products, including its Belgard-branded concrete pavers and segmented retaining walls. All Masonry distributed landscape supplies and concrete products to customers. All Masonry claimed that in 2001, it entered into an agreement with Oldcastle to be Oldcastle's exclusive dealer of Belgard products in San Diego County. The 2001 dealer agreement was part written and part oral. In 2013, All Masonry sued Oldcastle for breaching the 2001 dealer agreement by distributing Belgard products through other dealers in San Diego County. Oldcastle prevailed on the breach of contract cause of action in 2015 when the court granted its motion for summary adjudication on that claim, rejecting All Masonry's contention that it had the exclusive right to sell Belgard at preferential pricing in San Diego County. Oldcastle filed a postjudgment motion to recover attorney fees in connection with All Masonry's breach of contract claim. The court awarded Oldcastle $180,120 in attorney fees for defending the breach of contract cause of action through summary adjudication and for litigating the postjudgment fees motion. The Court of Appeal reversed the award of attorney fees to Oldcastle, finding no clear and unequivocal evidence that the parties intended to incorporate the terms of a 2010 credit application into their 2001 dealer agreement, which was the basis of the fee award. Civil Code section 1642 does not allow the recovery of attorney fees in this case. View "R.W.L. Enterprises v. Oldcastle, Inc." on Justia Law

Former restaurant employees sued their former employer, Koji’s Japan, Inc. (Koji’s), Koji’s president, sole shareholder and director Arthur Parent, Jr. (Parent), and A.J. Parent Company, Inc., otherwise known as America’s Printer (America’s Printer), of which Parent was also the president, sole shareholder and director. The plaintiff employees alleged wage and hour claims under the federal Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), claims under the California unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, sec. 17200), and a claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, sec. 2699 et seq.). Considering this appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate, the Court of Appeal granted writ relief by holding: (1) the trial court erred by granting the motion to certify a class as to plaintiffs’ claims against only Koji’s because the court applied improper criteria in determining Parent’s potential liability as a joint employer on a class-wide basis; (2) the trial court prejudicially erred by denying plaintiffs’ revised motion to compel further responses to a set of document requests, and also by sanctioning plaintiffs’ counsel; (3) because the Court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying the revised motion to compel further responses to discovery on alter ego issues, the Court directed the trial court to also vacate its findings that Parent and America’s Printer were not Koji’s alter egos; and (4) although the trial court’s statement of decision correctly cited the controlling case law in this matter, the statement of decision misapplied the law as set by that case. View "Turman v. Superior Court" on Justia Law