Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

601 Main sued Frym, its tenant, to collect $145,211.29 in unpaid rent, taxes, and insurance premiums. Frym filed a cross-complaint against 601, DeCarli (601’s principal), and their attorney, Leoni, for fraud, extortion, and breach of contract, alleging that 601, DeCarli, and Leoni entered Frym’s office “without announcement or an appointment and placed a blank promissory note in front of [him] and berated him and yelled at him to sign a blank promissory note or he would be evicted.” 601, DeCarli, and Leoni each filed a separate anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion, Code Civ. Proc. 425.16. The court granted DeCarli’s motion and awarded $6,310 in attorney fees and costs. Frym dismissed the cross-complaints against Leoni and 601. The court stated that “there is no reason that all three of these motions could not have been brought as one" and, although Leoni and 601 prevailed, or would have prevailed absent the dismissals, no further fees were merited.The court of appeal reversed. The trial court erred in not employing the lodestar method when it denied 601 and Leoni’s requests for attorney fees and costs; they were prevailing parties to their anti-SLAPP motions. Since the court found that the three motions contained similar or identical arguments, it could have reduced the lodestar figure based on duplicative work. View "Frym v. 601 Main Street LLC" on Justia Law

T.T. (Mother) challenged a juvenile court’s finding that the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) did not apply to the dependency proceedings concerning her son, Dominick D. She argued the juvenile court failed to ensure that San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) discharged its duty of initial inquiry into Dominick’s possible Indian ancestry under California Welfare & Institutions Code section 224.2(b). To this, the Court of Appeal agreed, but declined to address the parties’ arguments concerning harmlessness, because ICWA inquiry and notice errors did not warrant reversal of the juvenile court’s jurisdictional or dispositional findings and orders other than the finding that ICWA did not apply. The Court accordingly vacated that finding and remanded for compliance with ICWA and related California law, but otherwise affirmed. View "In re Dominick D." on Justia Law

King is Jimmy's former spouse and mother of his minor child. Jimmy was killed in a California helicopter crash. His sole heirs were his spouse, Wasdin, and his minor child. Jimmy and King were residents of Alabama. An Alabama probate court named King as the personal representative of Jimmy’s estate. King filed a California wrongful death suit. Wasdin moved to intervene; Code Civil Procedure 387(d)(1)(B)) provides that a court “shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene” if “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction" and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair that person’s ability to protect that interest unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties. King asserted the one-action rule, which precludes an heir from filing an independent action after a decedent’s personal representative has filed suit for wrongful death, and that any complaints about the inadequacy of her representation of Wasdin’s interest should be addressed by the Alabama probate court.The court of appeal reversed the denial of Wasdin’s motion. An heir must be granted leave to intervene as a matter of right so long as the statutory requirements for intervention have been met. The trial court denied the motion on the incorrect basis that there was no legal authority allowing an heir to intervene in a wrongful death action filed by the personal representative and failed to consider whether the heir’s interests were adequately represented by the personal representative. View "King v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff on her causes of action for wrongful eviction and financial elder abuse. Defendant contends that (1) it was unfairly surprised at trial because the pleadings were inadequate to put LOP on notice of Plaintiff's claims; (2) Plainitiff failed to prove financial elder abuse; (3) the trial court erred in the admission and exclusion of evidence; (4) Plaintiff is not entitled to damages, or alternatively, her damages should be limited; and (5) the award of attorney fees and costs should be reversed. address the adequacy of the pleadings.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s judgment, order denying the motion for a new trial, and order awarding Plaintiff attorney fees. The court explained the record demonstrates that Defendant was not misled. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial on this basis. Having argued that refusal to re-rent was the only theory of recovery for wrongful eviction pleaded in the complaint in its summation brief, Defendant cannot contend that it was unfairly surprised or that the cause of action was inadequately pleaded. Further, the court held that the right to re-rent under LAMC Section 151.27 and the Ellis Act is a property right within the meaning of the Elder Abuse Act. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the finding that LOP had fraudulent intent and knew its refusal to re-rent was wrong or harmful to Plaintiff. View "Cameron v. Las Orchidias Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

Paredes obtained dental services from Mai Dental in 2015-2016, with the understanding that payments made by Delta Dental would satisfy in full any debt that Paredes owed. In 2018, Paredes received a check from Delta for $2,195. Mai's employee refused to accept the check as full payment. Paredes retained the uncashed check but did not make any payment to Mai. Mai assigned Paredes’s debt to Credit Consulting, which filed suit, seeking $9,613 in allegedly unpaid dental bills, plus interest and attorney fees. More than one year later, Paredes filed a cross-complaint asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692) (FDCPA) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Consulting responded with an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion to strike the cross-complaint, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the trial court erred in finding Paredes had demonstrated a probability of success on the merits because her claims are time-barred; that the trial court erred in determining this matter arose out of a “consumer credit transaction,” as defined by the Rosenthal Act, and that Paredes failed to demonstrate that its collection action violated the FDCPA because Credit Consulting filed suit in reasonable reliance upon the information provided by Mai. View "Paredes v. Credit Consulting Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The juvenile court bypassed family reunification services for appellant S.Z. (Mother) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5 (b)(5) and (c)(3). Mother contended the court’s ruling was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeal concluded Mother’s argument lacked merit, but published its opinion in this case to clarify the relationship between subdivisions (b)(5) and (c)(3) of section 361.5 and the resulting burden on an appellant challenging the bypass of reunification services under those provisions. Because Mother did not make a showing under subsection (c)(3), and could not do so on this record, the Court affirmed. View "In re Raul V." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Lynn Gerlach and Lola Seals appealed the judgment entered in their action against defendant K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC under the Right to Repair Act (the Act), concerning alleged construction defects. After review, the Court of Appeal affirmed and published its opinion to clarify: (1) a roof is a manufactured product within the meaning of California Civil Code section 896(g)(3)(A) only if the roof is completely manufactured offsite; and (2) to prove a roof defect claim under subdivision (a)(4) or (g)(11) of section 896, a plaintiff must prove that water intrusion has actually occurred or roofing material has actually fallen from the roof. View "Gerlach v. K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC" on Justia Law

Technology Credit Union (TCU) sought a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) (Code Civ. Proc., 527.81) restraining Rafat and protecting TCU’s employee, M.L., claiming that Rafat had made a credible threat of violence against M.L. M.L.’s declaration, described a single encounter between her and Rafat at TCU, during which Rafat “became visibly angry and became aggressive towards” her, made a video recording of her “without her consent,” “made several rude and inappropriate statements questioning [her] mental competency,” repeatedly refused her request to stop recording, and “forced a pen and paper back towards [her] and demanded that [she] write down his number.” M.L. believed that Rafat “will come back and seek [her] out” because Rafat “frequently visits” TCU. Rafat admitted that he made a video recording of the interaction, which he posted on his YouTube channel, but denied M.L.’s other claims and denied that he made a credible threat of violence.The court of appeal reversed the entry of a WVRO. The evidence is insufficient to show that Rafat made a credible threat of violence. Rafat’s conduct was rude, impatient, aggressive, and derogatory; he had a history of using aggressive language, including making offensive remarks. However, the only threats he made were litigation and complaints to a federal agency. His actions toward M.L. consisted of berating her, complaining to her supervisor, and posting an accurate video of their interaction on YouTube. View "Technology Credit Union v. Rafat" on Justia Law

At the time of his death, Farkas owned Parcels 5 and 18. His widow, McLaughlin, brought a probate petition to establish and enforce an access easement benefiting that property, naming Maleti. Maleti sold Parcel 18 to Farkas in 1993; after 2000, Maleti owned no property in the vicinity. McLaughlin’s nine claims were resolved in favor of Maleti. Carol, Maleti’s executor, sued McLaughlin and her Attorneys for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Attorneys filed a special motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, "anti-SLAPP" (strategic lawsuit against public participation)). The trial court struck Carol’s abuse of process claim but declined to strike the malicious prosecution claim.The court of appeal affirmed in part. Carol established that her malicious prosecution claim had “a minimum level of legal sufficiency and triability” A malicious prosecution plaintiff, having succeeded in all respects in defending a multiple-claim case, need not show that all such claims were resolved on the merits if at least one claim was terminated on the merits. Carol established the legal sufficiency and an evidentiary basis supporting the elements of absence of probable cause and malice required for malicious prosecution. Carol did not adequately plead abuse of process. The trial court erred in denying Attorneys’ request for attorney fees and costs as the prevailing defendant; a finding that Attorneys derived no practical benefit from successfully moving to strike the abuse of process claim was not supported by the record. View "Maleti v. Wickers" on Justia Law

This litigation arose from a decision by the City of Chula Vista (the City) to reject applications by CV Amalgamated LLC, dba Caligrown (CVA) for licenses to operate retail cannabis stores in the City. In 2018, the City enacted an ordinance regulating commercial cannabis businesses (the Cannabis Ordinance). Among other things, the Cannabis Ordinance allowed for a maximum of eight storefront retail cannabis business licenses, with up to two licenses in each of the City’s four council districts (the Council Districts). CVA submitted applications for storefront retail cannabis business licenses in each of the City’s four Council Districts. CVA filed an appeal with the City Manager, in which it challenged the City’s rejections of its applications for licenses in Council Districts One, Three and Four. After a hearing, CVA's applications were again denied, and it initiated this litigation in September 2020. On January 29, 2021, the trial court issued an order denying CVA’s motion for a writ of mandate. The trial court made no factual findings and failed to explain why it concluded that CVA had failed to meet its burden. The Court of Appeal concluded the City failed to follow its ministerial and mandatory duty to follow its own procedures when it rejected CVA's applications in the initial assessments of the applications. The trial court's judgment was reversed with instructions to issue a writ of mandate directing the City to reassess CVA's applications in districts One, Three and Four. View "CV Amalgamated LLC v. City of Chula Vista" on Justia Law