James A. Ardaiz

In this case, conservation groups challenged the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's approval of three timber harvest plans, alleging violations of the Forest Practice Act, related regulations, and CEQA regarding cumulative impacts on wildlife and analysis of herbicide use. After the California Supreme Court upheld the approvals and rejected all claims, the groups sought attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, arguing they were successful parties due to clarification of the agency's duties on herbicide issues. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of fees, concluding that the plaintiffs were not successful parties because they obtained no relief, lost on every claim, and an award would constitute an unwarranted expansion of the private attorney general doctrine.

environmentprocedure

The case involved defendant Jose Luis Rodriguez, who in 2009 was sentenced to prison after pleading no contest to receiving stolen property and admitting a probation violation from a prior burglary case; the trial court awarded presentence credits under the version of Penal Code section 4019 in effect at sentencing, which allowed two days of conduct credit for every four days in custody. Rodriguez appealed, arguing he was entitled to the more generous four-for-four conduct credit rate under a January 2010 amendment to section 4019 because his case was not yet final, or alternatively that prospective-only application violated equal protection. The Court of Appeal held that the amendment applies only prospectively, relying on Penal Code section 3's presumption against retroactivity absent express legislative declaration and the absence of any indication that the Legislature intended retroactive effect; it further found a rational basis for the prospective application in incentivizing future inmate conduct. The court corrected a minor arithmetic error in the credits awarded but otherwise affirmed the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge to the City of Madera's approval of a retail shopping center project under CEQA, where the site plan was modified to enlarge the largest store from about 138,000 to 198,484 square feet without preparing a new or supplemental EIR. The court held that the City did not violate CEQA or its municipal code, as the addendum to the original EIR adequately addressed the changes, which did not introduce new significant environmental effects or increase the severity of existing ones, and total project square footage remained unchanged. The approval process, including public hearings and consideration of the addendum by the city council, complied with legal requirements, and the project approval occurred on August 1, 2007. The court also clarified that prior precedent did not mandate analysis of urban decay effects for large retail stores like supercenters.

environmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a hospital employer's attempt to recover reimbursement from the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) for ongoing workers' compensation payments to an injured nurse after the employer's excess insurance carrier became insolvent. The employer and its affiliates had paid amounts exceeding the policy's self-insured retention, but CIGA denied the claims on the ground that they were not 'covered claims' under Insurance Code section 1063.1 because the entities presenting them were not the original named policyholder following corporate name changes and mergers. The trial court granted summary judgment to CIGA. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that claims presented by the original employing corporation remained covered despite a name change, and that the surviving corporation after an internal merger among affiliated entities qualified as an 'original claimant' under a narrow exception to prior precedent, creating triable issues on affirmative defenses as well.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved Eric James Lawrence's jury convictions on charges of attempted unpremeditated murder with firearm enhancements, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, assault with a firearm, and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, plus findings of two prior prison terms, arising from a 2007 incident in which he shot at a man during an argument at a Tulare motel after being called a punk. Lawrence appealed, claiming errors in jury instructions on witness credibility and attempted murder, as well as sentencing mistakes. The court rejected the instructional challenges, concluding the given CALCRIM instructions were legally correct and did not affect the defendant's substantial rights or require reversal under the Watson standard, but it remanded solely to correct the sentencing errors while affirming the convictions and judgment in all other respects.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jason Jacob Cardona, who was convicted by a jury of multiple forcible sexual offenses against two minors, including rape, lewd acts, and oral copulation, with enhancements for multiple victims. Although Cardona was a juvenile for part of the relevant time period, the charges were filed directly in adult court under Proposition 21, and following a fitness hearing the trial court found him unfit for juvenile court treatment based on factors including the criminal sophistication and gravity of the offenses, then imposed a sentence of 30 years to life. On appeal, Cardona argued that Apprendi v. New Jersey required a jury to determine the facts supporting the juvenile court unfitness finding and that the transfer procedures violated due process. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Apprendi does not apply to juvenile fitness determinations and that any due process claim was forfeited by failure to raise it below.

criminal lawprocedure