Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Appellant made a request for pendente lite attorney fees was made early in the marriage dissolution proceedings and had been pending for over a year when the trial started. By that time, Appellant was unemployed and representing herself. Nonetheless, her request for pendente lite attorney fees was never ruled on by the family court. Instead, the court waited until after the trial to address attorney fees in its final judgment of reserved issues.   The Fifth Appellate District explained that Appellant has demonstrated the family court’s failures to comply with its obligations under section 2030 were prejudicial. To remedy this prejudicial error, the court explained it must reverse the judgment (which places all reserved issues at large) and remand the case for further proceedings. Those proceedings shall include a hearing on Appellant’s request for pendente lite attorney fees and a decision on that request before the new trial is started. Because over four years have passed since Appellant filed her May 2018 request for an order awarding pendente lite attorney fees and costs, the court shall allow Appellant to file a new request for order and shall allow Blair to file a response before hearing the request for pendente lite attorney fees and costs. View "Marriage of Knox" on Justia Law

Appellant Federal Insurance Company (Federal) was the prevailing party in a lawsuit Cell-Crete Corporation (Cell-Crete) brought seeking to recover against Federal on a payment bond. After dismissal, the trial judge denied Federal’s request for attorney fees and taxed its costs on the ground that Federal did not incur any fees or costs because a third party, Granite Construction Company (Granite), paid the fees and costs of Federal’s defense under an indemnity agreement between Federal and Granite. On appeal, Federal argued it was entitled, as the prevailing party, to recover their reasonable attorney fees and costs anyway: a party represented by counsel in an attorney-client relationship was entitled to an award of fees and costs even if they had been or would be borne by a third party. To this the Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the order denying Federal’s motion for attorney fees and granting Cell-Crete’s motion to tax costs, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cell-Crete Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Respondents moved to dismiss this appeal as untimely. The notice of appeal was filed with the superior court more than 60 days after notice of entry of judgment was served upon appellants. Appellants oppose dismissal on the grounds that they made a timely attempt to electronically file the notice of appeal. The Court of Appeal found the issue raised by this case posed "a series of questions not yet answered in the case law:"(1) does either (or both) rule apply to notices of appeal [Rules 2.259(c) or 8.77(d)]; (2) if so, which court (i.e., the trial court or the court of appeal) determines whether relief is provided to the appellant; (3) what burden of proof applies to factual determinations under the applicable rule or rules; and (4) does the evidence in this case justify providing relief under the applicable rule or rules? The Court concluded: (1) both rules potentially apply to a notice of appeal, but only rule 8.77(d) was invoked by appellants; (2) a motion under rule 8.77(d) had to be filed with the appellate court; (3) a party seeking relief under rule 8.77(d) has to demonstrate “good cause,” which includes a preponderance of the evidence that an attempt to electronically file the document was made prior to the expiration of the deadline and that diligence was shown in promptly filing the notice of appeal after the failed attempt; and (4) appellants have not met that standard in this case. View "Garg v. Garg" on Justia Law

The County of San Joaquin (County) petitioned for review of a Public Employment Relations Board (Board) decision in which the Board found the County interfered with and discriminated against the protected activity of the California Nurses Association (Nurses) and its registered nurse members (members). Specifically, the Board found the County’s policy prohibiting members from returning to work after a noticed strike based on the County’s contract with a strike replacement company containing a minimum shift guarantee for replacement workers was conduct inherently destructive to protected activity. The Board then announced and applied a new test providing for a defense to the County’s conduct of threatening and implementing the policy and determined the County could not meet the standard set forth in the test. The Board ordered several remedies, including that the County allow members to use accrued leave for the time they were prohibited from returning to work and for similar absences in the future. The Court of Appeal granted the County’s petition for writ of review relief, and issued the writ of review. After reviewing the County's challenges to several of the Board’s legal, factual, and remedial findings, the Court affirmed the Board’s decision in all respects. View "County of San Joaquin v. Public Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

ZF Micro Solutions, Inc., the successor of now deceased ZF Micro Devices, Inc., alleged TAT Capital Partners, Ltd., murdered its predecessor by inserting a board member who poisoned it. The trial court decided the claim for breach of TAT’s fiduciary duty as a director was equitable rather than legal and, after a court trial, entered judgment for TAT. ZF Micro Solutions argued this was error. The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that while examining the performance of a board member’s fiduciary duties would be required, resolution of this claim did not implicate the powers of equity, and it should have been tried as a matter at law. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "ZF Micro Solutions, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd." on Justia Law

On April 10, 2017, Cedric Anderson entered his wife’s classroom at an elementary school, which was part of the San Bernardino City Unified School District (the district). Anderson shot and killed his wife, a student, and himself in front of a class of students. Plaintiffs-appellants C.I. (minor), J.I. (guardian ad litem), D.B. (minor), J.B. (guardian ad litem), B.E.Jr. (minor), B.E.Sr. (guardian ad litem), J.A.G. (minor), J.G. (guardian ad litem), M.M. (minor), M.T.M. (guardian ad litem), M.P. (minor), E.B. (guardian ad litem), M.R. (minor), and D.R. (guardian ad litem) filed suit against defendants-respondents district and Y.D. (the school’s principal), alleging, inter alia, negligence and dangerous condition of property. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds they owed no duty to plaintiffs because Anderson’s actions were unforeseeable, the school property was not a dangerous condition because there was no defect, and Anderson was not using the school property with due care. The trial court agreed, and judgment was entered in defendants’ favor. On appeal, plaintiffs contended defendants had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect students from criminal activity, and the district created a dangerous condition by failing to lock the front office door and equip classrooms with doors that locked. Finding no reversible error in the trial court judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "C.I. v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Appellant Murray Plumbing and Heating Corporation (Murray) briefly employed Respondent as a journeyman pipefitter in 2019–2020. In 2020, Respondent sued for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), alleging Murray did not provide meal and rest breaks or accurate wage statements; pay all wages in a timely manner; or reimburse business expenses. The employment relationship was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent's union and Murray. The CBA requires arbitration of disputes—including ones arising under PAGA—as the sole and exclusive remedy. Murray moved to compel arbitration, and the trial court denied the motion.The right to file a PAGA action generally cannot be waived by contract. However, the Labor Code exempts construction workers from PAGA if a CBA covers wages, hours and working conditions and (1) has a grievance and arbitration procedure to redress Labor Code violations; (2) clearly waives PAGA; and (3) authorizes the arbitrator to award all remedies available under the Labor Code.Here, the Second Appellate District held that the parties’ CBA clearly waives PAGA and satisfies the requirements of section 2699.6, as a matter of law. Thus, the court determined that the parties' dispute is exempt from PAGA, reversing the trial court's order and remanding with instructions for the trial cour to grant Murray's motion to compel arbitration. View "Oswald v. Murray Plumbing & Heating Corp." on Justia Law

In November 2019, Landlords served Tenants with a 120-Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy and half of the relocation assistance due under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. Both Tenants then claimed disability status; Landlord provided one-half of the additional relocation assistance payment for disabled tenants. Landlords filed a Notice of Intent to Withdraw Residential Units from the Rental Market with the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board and served Tenants with Notice to Tenant of Filing of Notice of Intent to Withdraw Residential Units from the Rental Market. Tenants exercised their right under the Act to a one-year extension of the withdrawal date based on their claimed disabilities; they did not vacate the premises by November 15, 2020. Landlords filed an unlawful detainer suit, Ellis Act, Gov. Code 7060. Tenants argued that the termination notice was defective in quoting a superseded version of the ordinance as the ground for eviction and therefore not properly advising them concerning relocation assistance payments.The court of appeal affirmed judgment in favor of Tenants, rejecting arguments that the Act preempts the ordinance, that Tenants cannot assert a defense under the Act for purported failure to comply with the ordinance, that the trial court improperly found that the notice of termination had to strictly comply with the ordinance, and that Landlords should be allowed to amend their complaint to state a claim for ejectment. View "2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs sued West, their landlord, and her son Timothy, who was part owner of property. Judgments were entered against West, totalling $201,245.50 (including $75,000 for punitive damages); judgments against Timotht totaled $67,550. The trebling of certain damages was to be determined separately, as was the determination of prevailing party attorney fees and costs. The trial court later granted Timothy a new trial, and denied West’s new trial motion on the condition that plaintiffs consent to a remittitur of total punitive damages to $15,000, in light of West’s “negative net income and limited net worth.” Plaintiffs consented to the remittitur and defendants posted a supersedeas bond of $221,064.75. The court granted the plaintiffs an additional award of $684,282.50 in attorney fees, plus costs and the trebling of certain damages, as against West. The plaintiffs requested entry of an amended judgment to reflect that order and delete any reference to Timothy; they later moved to require the posting of a bond for the additional amount, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1.The court granted a waiver under section 995.240 based on a showing of indigency and issued an amended judgment against West: $1,137,744.21. The court of appeal affirmed, dismissing West’s appeal of the amended judgment. The trial court had authority under section 995.240 to waive the bond requirement. View "Sarkany v. West" on Justia Law

Siri sued her former employer, Trinchero, for wrongful termination. Trinchero served an offer to compromise by paying Siri $500,000 in exchange for dismissal, Code of Civil Procedure section 998. During the 30-day period in which Trinchero’s offer remained in effect, the parties communicated about whether Siri’s acceptance would trigger a right to prejudgment interest of approximately $379,000. After Trinchero declined to modify the offer, Siri served “objections” to the offer, contending it was defective because it did not address the availability of interest. Days later, Siri served a “Notice of Conditional Acceptance,” then filed the objections to Trinchero’s offer and requested that the court enter a judgment, “consistent with [her] conditional acceptance” and including prejudgment interest. Trinchero filed a “Notice of Plaintiff’s Acceptance of 998 Offer,” stating that “Although [Trinchero] does not waive any right" to "separately respond to the substantive issues” and characterizing the conditions as “simply requests that the court clarify post-resolution questions.”Trinchero moved to enforce the purported settlement agreement. The court found that Siri’s service of her conditional acceptance created a binding settlement and did not condition acceptance on particular findings by the court. Siri then filed an unsuccessful motion seeking interest. The court of appeal reversed. Siri’s “conditional acceptance” included additional terms and did not create a binding settlement enforceable under section 998. View "Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc." on Justia Law