Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Glassman prevailed in an uninsured motorist (UIM) arbitration against Safeco. The arbitration agreement was contained in a Safeco umbrella policy that provided excess UIM benefits, above those afforded by Glassman’s concurrent Safeco auto-liability policy. Glassman had sustained bystander emotional distress damages after witnessing her mother’s fatal injuries when an underinsured driver hit them both while they were in a crosswalk. The arbitrator’s award determined that Glassman’s compensable damages exceeded the required threshold to entitle her to the umbrella-policy excess UIM limits of $1 million.Before the arbitration, Glassman had issued to Safeco a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer of $999,999.99. Safeco did not accept the offer. Glassman sought prejudgment interest under section 3287(a) from the date of her section 998 offer. Under section 3287(a), a liquidated damage claim triggers entitlement to prejudgment interest as a form of additional compensatory damages if the defendant knew or was able to calculate from reasonably available information the amount of the plaintiff’s liquidated claim owed as of a particular day. The trial court denied Glassman’s request, concluding that the amount of her claim was not certain or capable of being made certain.The court of appeal affirmed. An insured’s prevailing section 998 offer in a UIM proceeding does not effectively liquidate the insured’s claim in the amount and as of the date of the offer under section 3287(a). The court noted the lack of evidence of Safeco’s knowledge that Glassman’s economic losses or special damages resulting from the accident already exceeded the umbrella-policy limits when her section 998 offer was made. View "Glassman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a long-term employee of Defendant St. Cecilia Catholic School. In her final year of employment, Defendant worked part-time as an art teacher and office administrator. Following her discharge, Defendant filed this action against St. Cecilia for age discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) The trial court granted St. Cecilia’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff’s suit was barred by the ministerial exception, a constitutional doctrine that precludes certain employment claims brought against a religious institution by its ministers.   The Second Appellate District reversed the judgment in favor of St. Cecilia and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that there are triable issues of material fact as to whether the ministerial exception applies in this case. Further, the court wrote that St. Cecilia did not waive the ministerial exception by failing to assert the defense in its answer. The evidence that Plaintiff promoted “Christ-like” behavior in her class does not establish, as a matter of law, that she performed vital religious duties for St. Cecilia or otherwise qualified as a minister. Because there are triable issues of material fact as to whether the ministerial exception applies to Plaintiff’s former job position as an art teacher and an office administrator, St. Cecilia was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s age discrimination suit. View "Atkins v. St. Cecilia Catholic School" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Jayde Downey appealed the dismissal of her case after a trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrers of defendants-respondents Ara and Vahram Sevacherian (collectively, Sevacherian) and the City of Riverside (City) to Downey’s operative complaint. Downey alleged causes of action for dangerous condition of property and negligence arising out of an automobile collision involving Downey’s daughter, Vance. In that pleading, Downey alleged the collision occurred “because [City] created or permitted to exist, a dangerous condition of public property” and because Sevacherian maintained vegetation and trees on their property so as to cause an unsafe obstruction to the view of vehicular traffic. She alleged that because she was on the phone with Vance and heard the sounds of the crash and its aftermath, she was “present, or virtually present” at the scene when the collision happened, thereby causing Downey "serious emotional injuries and damages." The trial court ruled Downey’s allegations were “insufficient to show that Downey had a contemporaneous awareness of the injury-producing event—not just the harm Vance suffered, but also the causal connection between defendants’ tortious conduct and the injuries Vance suffered.” Downey contended the court erred; that because she contemporaneously perceived the event causing injury to Vance, she adequately alleged a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, finding that under the circumstances, Downey should be given an opportunity to allege facts establishing she had the requisite “‘contemporaneous sensory awareness of the causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury.’” View "Downey v. City of Riverside" on Justia Law

This case involves disputes over the disposition of assets. The assets at issue include monies and real and personal property assets held in trust pursuant to the Albert R. Pool Family Revocable Trust (“Original Trust Instrument”) as amended and restated in the 2013 Amendment and Restatement of the Albert R. Pool Family Revocable Trust (unnecessary capitalization omitted) (“Amended/Restated Trust” or “Trust”). Appellant was the deceased’s nephew, as well as his attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney (POA), executor under a pour-over, will, and successor Trustee under the Amended/Restated Trust. Appellant appealed from an order (the “subject order”) of the superior court sitting in probate (the “probate court”), in connection with an Amended Petition to Surcharge Trustee for Breach of Trust; Petition to Determine Trust Ownership of Assets and for Damages Pursuant to Probate Code Section 859 brought by Respondents each of whom were beneficiaries under the Amended/Restated Trust.   The Fifth Appellate District affirmed the probate court’s disposition of the Subject Property in the subject order. The court explained that even had evidence existed to demonstrate that the deceased wanted Appellant to have the subject funds, the lack of any written document authorizing Appellant to deposit the monies into the joint account would be fatal to Appellant’s appeal concerning the subject funds. The court concluded Appellant’s deposit of the subject funds violated section 4264, subdivision (f) by effectuating a change in the designation of beneficiaries who would have otherwise shared in the entitlement to the subject funds. View "Pool-O'Connor v. Guadarrama" on Justia Law

McCormick sought disability retirement based on symptoms caused by her office environment. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) denied her application. The court of appeal held that CalPERS members are eligible for disability retirement under the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (Gov. Code 20000) when they can no longer perform their usual duties at the location where they are required to work. A CalPERS member need not request an accommodation to become eligible for disability retirement. On remand, McCormick sought "prevailing party" attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, which applies when the action has conferred a significant benefit "on the general public or a large class of persons.”The court of appeal reversed the denial of that motion, finding that its prior opinion conferred a significant benefit on the public and that McCormick is otherwise entitled to attorney fees under section 1021.5. The conclusions reached in the earlier decision confer a benefit on a group larger than those CalPERS members who might seek disability retirement in factual circumstances similar to McCormick’s. The opinion emphasized that disability must be judged in light of a member’s actual job location and duties and that members need not seek an accommodation to become eligible. View "McCormick v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System" on Justia Law

Three community stakeholders moved to intervene in several lawsuits challenging the authority of the California Coastal Commission (Commission) to ban all off-highway vehicle (OHV) use at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (Oceano Dunes). The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the stakeholders’ interests are adequately represented in the litigation. Appellants contend the trial court erred when it: (1) denied them leave to intervene as of right, (2) denied their request for permissive intervention, and (3) sustained Respondents’ evidentiary objections.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court concluded that where a nonparty has interests in the outcome of a civil action that are identical to those of a party to the action, the nonparty must make a compelling showing of inadequate representation to be permitted to intervene as of right. The court explained that the trial court’s decision to deny Appellants’ request for permissive intervention did not exceed the bounds of reason because “ ‘the rights of the original parties to conduct their lawsuit on their own terms’ ” outweighed the reasons for intervention. The court wrote that additionally, permitting Appellants to intervene would add to an already-expansive action, one with four consolidated writ petitions; multiple plaintiffs, defendants, and real parties in interest; and significant burdens on the trial court. View "Friends of Oceano Dunes v. Cal. Coastal Com." on Justia Law

When A.F. was 11 years old, she applied for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her father, Jeffrey F., who held joint legal custody with her mother, Andrea F. Mother was the original guardian ad litem (GAL), and she retained attorney Edward Castro to represent A.F. Father successfully moved to disqualify Mother as the GAL and Castro as A.F.’s counsel. A.F. appealed the order disqualifying Castro. A new GAL was not appointed. Although A.F. brought the petition on her own behalf, the family court in her parents’ dissolution matter, appointed a “minor’s counsel” to represent her best interests there, in anticipation of changes to the custody and visitation arrangement that could result from the outcome in the DV matter. A.F. retained attorney Aaron Smith, to represent her in the DV matter. The court disqualified Smith for numerous reasons, including that there was a potential conflict of interest from having her maternal grandfather serve as a third-party guarantor. The court also interviewed A.F. and determined she was not competent to retain counsel independently, and it found Smith did not meet the requirements detailed by the California Rules of Court to serve as a “minor’s counsel.” The court appointed counsel in the DV matter, and prohibited Smith from replacing the attorney the court appointed as a “minor’s counsel.” A.F. appealed, contending that the issue of selecting her attorney should have been stayed pending the appeal of the court’s order disqualifying Castro. She also contended it was error to appoint counsel in the DV matter and to disqualify the attorney she chose to represent her there. The Court of Appeal: (1) concluded the court had subject matter jurisdiction to act in the DV matter while the first appeal was pending because her original attorney substituted out of the case; (2) reversed the appointment of a “minor’s counsel,” which was improper in a DV matter where a minor seeks a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA); (3) affirmed the order voiding the agreement between A.F. and Smith and removing Smith as her attorney on the basis that A.F. lacked competency to select her attorney independently; (4) reversed the order prohibiting Smith from serving as A.F.’s attorney in the matter because it was an abuse of discretion to completely disqualify him on the basis that the court rejected the fee agreement or that he failed to meet the requirements of Rule 5.242. View "A.F. v. Jeffrey F." on Justia Law

On December 29, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging a November 7, 2022, order of the superior court granting Petitioner’s request for trial setting preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36,1 but declining to set trial within 120 days.The Fifth Appellate District held that Petitioner's "entitlement to relief is obvious“ and ordered the Merced County Superior Court to set a trial date not more than 120 days after November 7, 2022. The court explained that a consistent line of precedent exists and superior courts have “no discretion to avoid the command of section 36[] in the interest of efficient management of the court’s docket as a whole.” View "Pabla v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The question presented for the Court of Appeal in this case was whether California could lawfully require anyone who seeks to vote in a presidential primary for a candidate of a particular political party to associate with that party as a condition of receiving a ballot with that candidate’s name on it. Plaintiffs contended that the answer was no, making Elections Code section 13102 unconstitutional. Defendants California Secretary of State and the State of California disputed this conclusion, asserting that the United States Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative on multiple occasions. Defendants pointed out, that when plaintiffs discuss a “right” to cast an expressive ballot simply for the sake of doing so, rather than to affect the outcome of an election, they have ceased talking about voting. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that elections have some “generalized expressive function.” California Court of Appeal concluded Plaintiffs’ inventive theories therefore did not supply a constitutional basis for evading binding legal precedent that foreclosed their arguments. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling sustaining the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend. View "Boydston v. Padilla" on Justia Law

Jessica G. (Mother) appealed a juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to her son, Robert F. Relying on subdivision (b) Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, Mother argued that the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to discharge its duty of initial inquiry, because DPSS did not ask various extended family members whether Robert had any Indian ancestry. The Court of Appeal found DPSS took Robert into protective custody pursuant to a warrant, so DPSS did not take Robert into temporary custody under section 306. Accordingly, DPSS had no obligation to ask Robert’s extended family members about his potential Indian status under section 224.2(b). The Court therefore affirmed the order terminating parental rights. View "In re Robert F." on Justia Law