Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

This case involved citations issued to smog technician Marc Madison and his employer Davis Test Only Smog Testing (d/b/a Citrus Heights Star Smog (Star Smog)), after Madison passed an unpassable vehicle brought to the business by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair (Bureau) for a smog inspection. The Bureau had replaced the working air injection system (part of the emissions control system) with a nonworking air injection system and did not attach a belt to the pulley to power the air injection system. Star Smog was assessed a $1,000 fine, and Madison was ordered to complete a Bureau training course. Star Smog and Madison appealed the citations, and the case was heard by an administrative law judge. Star Smog and Madison acknowledged that Madison passed a vehicle that should not have passed the smog inspection, but they argued that the relevant regulations and guidelines from the Bureau were vague and did not give Madison notice that he needed to determine whether a belt was attached to the air injection system. The administrative law judge issued a proposed decision upholding the citations, which proposed decision the Bureau adopted. Star Smog and Madison filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, making the same arguments in the superior court. The superior court denied the petition, and Star Smog and Madison appealed, arguing the administrative decision was void because Star Smog and Madison were represented by a non-attorney. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that Star Smog’s decision to send its former secretary/treasurer to represent it in the administrative hearing did not render the decision void, and Madison properly represented himself. View "Davis Test Only Smog Testing v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs etc." on Justia Law

Francisca Cabandong filed the underlying action in 2012 and served Shawn Higgins with a summons and third amended complaint in August 2016. In this writ proceeding, Higgins challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss Cabandong's lawsuit on the basis that Cabandong failed to serve Higgins with the summons and complaint within three years of the commencement of the action, as required by the mandatory provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210(a). In denying Higgins's motion, the court ruled that the three-year period had not expired, since the action had been stayed from March 13, 2014, when codefendant Ronald Powell filed bankruptcy, until July 29, 2016, when the bankruptcy court granted Cabandong's motion to lift the automatic stay that became effective upon the filing of Powell's bankruptcy. The Court of Appeal determined that as a matter of law, the automatic stay that applied to claims against debtor Powell did not apply to Cabandong's claims against nondebtor Higgins. Accordingly, the trial court erred in ruling that Powell's bankruptcy stay affected Cabandong's obligation or ability to serve Higgins in this action. Because Cabandong served Higgins more than three years after commencement of this action, section 583.250 required that Cabandong's underlying lawsuit against Higgins be dismissed. View "Higgins v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Oregon State University (Oregon State) petitioned for a peremptory writ of mandate to direct a California superior court to vacate an order overruling Oregon State's demurrer to George Sutherland's first amended complaint, and to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. Sutherland filed suit sounding in negligence: Sutherland alleged he was severely injured when a crane he was operating tipped over. At the time, he was using the crane to load a stack container owned by Oregon State onto a vessel owned by his employer, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a department of the University of California, San Diego. The stack container's weight was not displayed on its exterior and was not accurately recorded on the bill of lading provided by Oregon State. Oregon State demurred, asserting the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation against Oregon State because the complaint did not and could not allege compliance with the Oregon Tort Claims Act's claims notice provision. Oregon State argued the Clause requires such compliance. The California trial court overruled the demurrer, acknowledging California and Oregon had similar government claims notice provisions, but found the Oregon Tort Claims Act had a damages cap and California's Government Claims Act did not. The court further found California's public policy of protecting people injured within its borders would not be promoted by applying the Oregon Tort Claims Act because applying it would only benefit Oregon's public fisc and effectively deprive Sutherland of a remedy against Oregon State. The Court of Appeal agreed the superior court should have sustained Oregon State's demurrer without leave to amend because the Oregon Tort Claims Act's claims notice provision was entitled to full faith and credit in California. Contrary to Sutherland's assertions, the provision did not conflict with or violate California's public policy and declining to give the provision full faith and credit would evince an impermissible policy of discriminatory hostility to the provision. The Court, therefore, granted the petition. View "Oregon State University v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The dispute underlying this appeal was between a contractor (respondent) and subcontractor (appellants). The parties sued each other for alleged damages arising out of a construction project on California State Route 91. Respondent moved to disqualify Pepper Hamilton LLP and its individual attorneys (collectively, Pepper Hamilton) from representing appellants in this action and to issue additional injunctive relief pertaining to confidential documents. Respondent claimed that appellants’ litigation counsel, Pepper Hamilton, had improperly accessed documents made available by respondent solely for mediation sessions that preceded the commencement of the action. The court granted the motion, finding disqualification was appropriate to eliminate the possibility that Pepper Hamilton would exploit the unfair advantage. Appellants filed a petition for writ of supersedeas, arguing: (1) their appeal of the disqualification order resulted in an automatic stay of all trial court proceedings; or (2) if there was no automatic stay, the Court of Appeal court should exercise its discretionary power to stay all trial court proceedings. The Court indeed issued a temporary stay of all trial court proceedings and invited further briefing by the parties on the issue of whether an appeal of an order disqualifying counsel result in an automatic stay pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 916? If so, how far does the automatic stay extend: solely to enforcement of the disqualification order or to all trial court proceedings? As a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeal concluded the appeal automatically stayed enforcement of the order disqualifying counsel, but not all trial court proceedings. The Court declined to address appellants’ request for a discretionary stay of all trial court proceedings pursuant to section 923. View "URS Corp. v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture" on Justia Law

Two cases consolidated for review involved a property where a shooting range had been operated for decades (the Property), its remediation by Plaintiffs Otay Land Company, LLC (OLC) and Flat Rock Land Company, LLC (FRLC) (collectively, Plaintiffs), and their efforts to recover remediation costs from former owners under the Carpenter Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substances Account Act. Defendants were former owner United Enterprises, Inc. (UEI) and its successors, including United Enterprises, Ltd. (UEL) (together, UE Defendants or UE), and former owner Baldwin Vista Associates, L.P. (now The Otay Ranch, L.P.) and certain of its general partners. Plaintiffs also asserted common law claims for continuing nuisance and continuing trespass. The case proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court's Statement of Decision addressed issues regarding whether Plaintiffs had a private right of action, liability, defenses, the allocation of costs, and cost reductions, each in the alternative, and held Plaintiffs should take nothing. The court entered judgment for Defendants. Defendants moved for attorney fees and costs, which the court denied. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its interpretation and application of the Carpenter Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substances Account Act. After review, the Court of Appeal affirmed certain rulings, reversed the judgment in all other respects, and remanded with directions. In light of this decision, the Court held defendants’ appeal of fees was moot. View "Otay Land Co. v. U.E. Limited" on Justia Law

In 2013, plaintiff-respondent Gerardo Medina purchased a used car from defendant-appellant South Coast Car Company, Inc. The sales contract was eventually assigned to Veros Credit, LLC, and plaintiff sued on nine causes of action stemming from that contract. The parties settled the suit on the eve of trial. Relevant to this appeal, defendants also agreed that they would not "dispute [Medina's] underlying entitlement to attorneys' fees based upon the claims brought in the [underlying a]ction"; that Medina "shall be deemed the prevailing party on all causes of action for purposes of the motion" for attorney fees; that defendants "reserve the right to dispute the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest claimed to have been incurred" by Medina; and that defendants "maintain all defenses as to the limitations on the amount of attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest." On appeal (and despite the Settlement), defendants contend the court erred when it awarded Medina attorney fees, costs and prejudgment interest. Specifically, defendants contended that, although Medina was the prevailing party as provided under the settlement, Veros was not liable to pay any portion of his fees and costs because it was merely the "holder" of the sales contract and thus, its liability was limited to the amounts paid by Medina, or about $8,600, and that Medina, in any event, was not entitled to any such award because he previously had rejected SCCC's offer to rescind the sales contract. The Court of Appeal disagreed with defendants’ contentions, finding the record showed defendants recognized in connection with their summary judgment/adjudication motion that their settlement offer went to the " 'determination of the legal basis' " for an award of attorney fees: it would have made little sense for the parties to enter into the Settlement and not resolve what was and the overarching issue in the case, in light of the parties' extensive litigation of this issue up to the time of the settlement. View "Medina v. South Coast Car Company" on Justia Law

Adolf Gonzalez was shot and killed in an incident with two Anaheim police officers. Plaintiffs were the Decedent’s mother and minor daughter, who filed a complaint in federal court against the City of Anaheim (the City) and the two officers (collectively, Defendants). The Federal Complaint ("F.E.V. I") asserted four claims for violation of civil rights pursuant to title 42 United States Code section 1983 and state law claims for false arrest/false imprisonment, battery, negligence, and violation of the Bane Act, Civil Code section 52.1. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the civil rights claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Following that dismissal, Plaintiffs filed a State Complaint, which overlapped the Federal Complaint, but provided more detail. After the Court of Appeal held oral argument in the prior appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its panel opinion in Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 2013 U.S.App. Lexis 9607, affirming F.E.V. I. On its own motion, the Court of Appeal took judicial notice of that opinion, which confirmed what would have been the outcome based on the status of the judgment at the time of oral argument. Based on Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 46 Cal.4th 501 (2009), the Court of Appeal held that the federal court judgment collaterally estopped Plaintiffs from pursuing their state law causes of action based on both the shooting and on theory the officers’ conduct before the shooting was negligent, and their battery and false arrest/false imprisonment causes of action. Nine months after we issued our opinion, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc opinion reversing the federal court judgment as to claims of excessive force. In February 2015, Plaintiffs filed a new complaint (the Second State Complaint) asserting the same five causes of action as in the first State Complaint. Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the prior state court judgment. The trial court denied the motion. Plaintiffs brought a petition for writ of mandate to challenge the order denying their motion to vacate the judgment. A panel of the Court of Appeal summarily denied the writ petition. Defendants demurred to the Second State Complaint on the ground the claims were barred by collateral estoppel, jurisdiction, and the applicable statute of limitations. After oral argument, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal found: (1) the Ninth Circuit en banc opinion did not nullify F.E.V. I; (2) plaintiffs could not collaterally attack the judgment affirmed by F.E.V. I; and (3) it would have been manifestly unjust to give claim preclusion effect to the judgement affirmed by F.E.V. I. As such, the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "F.E.V. v. City of Anaheim" on Justia Law

Defendant Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (the Tribe) appealed a judgment after trial in favor of plaintiff Sharp Image Gaming, Inc. (Sharp Image), in plaintiff’s breach of contract action stemming from a deal to develop a casino on the Tribe’s land. On appeal, the Tribe argued: (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Sharp Image’s action in state court was preempted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA); (2) the trial court erred in failing to defer to the National Indian Gaming Commission’s (NIGC) determination that the disputed Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) and a promissory note (the Note) were management contracts requiring the NIGC’s approval; (3) Sharp Image’s claims were barred by the Tribe’s sovereign immunity; (4) the trial court erred in denying the Tribe’s motion for summary judgment; (5) the jury’s finding that the ELA was an enforceable contract was inconsistent with its finding that the ELA left essential terms for future determination; and (6) substantial evidence does not support the jury’s verdict on the Note. After the parties completed briefing in this case, the United States was granted permission to submit an amicus curiae brief in partial support of the Tribe on the questions of preemption and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal concluded IGRA preempted state contract actions based on unapproved “management contracts” and “collateral agreements to management contracts” as such agreements are defined in the IGRA regulatory scheme. Thus, the trial court erred by failing to determine whether the ELA and the Note were agreements subject to IGRA regulation, a necessary determination related to the question of preemption and the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court concluded the ELA was a management contract and the Note was a collateral agreement to a management contract subject to IGRA regulation. Because these agreements were never approved by the NIGC Chairman as required by the IGRA and were thus void, Sharp Image’s action was preempted by IGRA. Consequently, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. View "Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians" on Justia Law

At a special hearing, the juvenile court issued a permanent restraining order prohibiting the child's stepfather from having any contact with the child (C.M.). The child's mother, E.S., appealed an order the juvenile court issued at the same hearing, directing the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) to immediately remove her child from her care if there is "any evidence that the minor has been exposed to [his stepfather] or if mother violates the restraining order." While the Court of Appeal appreciated the juvenile court's assessment of the need to warn E.S. in no uncertain terms there would be serious consequences if C.M. has any contact with the stepfather, the Court concluded issuing a conditional removal order was not the way to warn her. “Removal, including a temporary detention, must be made on a timely assessment of risk to the child. Here, the court may have informed E.S. about the potential legal consequences of exposing C.M. to [the stepfather], including removal from her custody and termination of parental rights. The court may have directed the Agency to immediately bring to its attention any evidence of contact between C.M. and [the stepfather] and to set a hearing to address the issue. However, the conditional removal order disregards the dependency scheme, which is carefully calculated, not only to protect the child, but also to guarantee procedural and substantive due process to the child and the parent.” View "In re C.M." on Justia Law

Defendant Anice Plikaytis appealed an order awarding her attorneys' fees in a breach of contract action brought by plaintiff Debra Roth. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal agreed with Plikaytis's contention that the trial court erred when it declined to consider previously filed documents she incorporated by reference as part of her motion. In the unpublished portions of the opinion, the Court discussed Plikaytis's arguments that: (1) the court failed to apply the lodestar method; (2) erroneously denied fees for equitable and cross-claims and for obtaining relief from bankruptcy stays; and (3) substantially reduced her award without explanation. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred by denying fees for obtaining bankruptcy stay relief that related to the breach claim and failing to provide an adequate justification for significantly reducing the number of hours allowed. Accordingly, the trial court was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the matter remanded with directions. View "Roth v. Plikaytis" on Justia Law