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

The case concerns Tyrone Ebaniz's convictions for first-degree murder, torture, kidnapping, and related offenses arising from the 2001 beating, torture, and shooting death of Eric Jones, in which Ebaniz participated as a minor alongside several adults but claimed his actions were compelled by duress. After an initial conviction, partial reversal on appeal, retrial on the murder count, and affirmance of the remaining convictions, Ebaniz petitioned for habeas corpus relief based on newly discovered evidence, primarily statements indicating he was forced to participate at gunpoint. The Court of Appeal held that this evidence pointed unerringly to actual innocence under the applicable habeas standard, entitling Ebaniz to reversal of the convictions and a new trial. The court's reasoning focused on the requirement that newly discovered evidence must undermine the entire prosecution case and establish innocence, rather than merely suggesting reduced culpability, while rejecting arguments that prior admission of some evidence or procedural bars precluded relief.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a factoring company's appeal from a superior court order denying its petitions to approve transfers of structured settlement payment rights under California's Structured Settlement Transfer Act. The superior court had rejected the petitions due to alleged deficiencies in required disclosures, such as font sizes and formatting, as well as other procedural issues, leading to dismissals that it treated as with prejudice. The Court of Appeal reversed the consolidated order in full, determining that the superior court committed legal errors by misinterpreting the Act's disclosure requirements, by dismissing petitions with prejudice instead of without, and by making findings about unrelated petitions not before it. The appellate court reasoned that these errors in factual findings and legal conclusions were prejudicial and intertwined, requiring reversal to permit the petitions to be amended and reheard.

business & regulatoryproceduretaxes

The case concerned a factoring company's efforts to enforce a 2006 court-approved transfer of structured settlement annuity payments under California's Structured Settlement Transfer Act (SSTA), after a later petition sought to transfer additional payments and prompted a superior court to void the prior approval. The Court of Appeal reversed the superior court's order voiding the 2006 transfer and directed dismissal of the subsequent petition without prejudice. The court reasoned that a final SSTA approval order by one superior court judge cannot be set aside by another judge under Insurance Code sections 10139.5(f) or 10137 absent direct evidence of fraud, as the statute provides for continuing jurisdiction only to interpret and monitor implementation, not to reopen prior final orders.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a factoring company, 321 Henderson Receivables Origination LLC, that sought court approval under California's Structured Settlement Transfer Act (SSTA) to purchase structured settlement payment rights from an individual in exchange for a lump sum. After a superior court judge in Fresno County issued a tentative ruling denying the petition and making broad findings critical of Henderson's practices, Henderson requested voluntary dismissal of its petition before any final order. The superior court denied the dismissal request and instead issued an order denying the petition on the merits, which Henderson appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Henderson had an absolute right to voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(1), prior to trial, and that the denial order was therefore void. The matter was remanded with instructions to enter the dismissal.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Suze Adams's appeal from convictions for the premeditated murder by arson of Kristina Soult, attempted premeditated murders of three other individuals at the scene, and two counts of arson of an inhabited structure. Adams challenged the admission of statements made during a polygraph examination, argued that the attempted murder convictions should be vacated because she was unaware of the presence of the additional victims, and contested the order of direct restitution to the Turlock Fire Department. The court affirmed all convictions, concluding that the attempted murder charges were supported by the concurrent intent or "kill zone" doctrine because Adams intentionally created a zone of harm by setting fires at both the front and back of the house, regardless of her lack of knowledge about the other victims' presence. The court rejected the polygraph-related claim but agreed the restitution order was erroneous and remanded for resentencing without that award.

criminal lawprocedure

Sheryl and Bruce Gray challenged Madera County's approvals of a conditional use permit, mining permit, rezoning, environmental impact report, and Williamson Act contract cancellation for the proposed Madera Ranch Quarry, a hard-rock mining and asphalt plant project on agricultural land. The trial court denied their petition for writ of mandate alleging violations of CEQA, the county general plan, and SMARA. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the EIR was deficient because it failed to analyze the water supply impacts of a mitigation measure that could require construction of a new water system for affected neighboring wells and that a water supply assessment was required under Senate Bill 610 for that system; other claims regarding mineral land classification and general plan consistency were rejected.

environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Michael Alan Williams's convictions for the 2004 murder of Rose Johnston, committed with a deadly weapon and as part of gang activity by the Small Town Peckerwoods, as well as active participation in a criminal street gang. The court affirmed the murder conviction but reversed the gang-related special circumstance finding and the gang participation conviction. The core reasoning was that evidence sufficiently showed the Small Town Peckerwoods met the definition of a criminal street gang based on its own activities, but the record did not establish the required organizational or concerted activity links to any larger Peckerwood group, leaving open the possibility that the jury improperly relied on evidence about the broader organization.

criminal law

Carlyne McKenney sued Purepac Pharmaceutical Company after developing tardive dyskinesia from using the generic drug metoclopramide, alleging that Purepac's labeling contained false or misleading statements that understated the risks. The trial court sustained Purepac's demurrer and dismissed the case, concluding that federal law preempted all claims because generic manufacturers must use FDA-approved labeling identical to the brand-name reference drug. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that the federal sameness requirement for generic drug labeling does not necessarily preempt state tort claims for inadequate warnings, particularly where the FDA has not expressly rejected additional warnings.

federal powerhealthcaretorts & liability

The case concerned an inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging inadequate medical treatment for a spinal condition in a California prison. The court decided that the federal receivership over the state's prison medical system, established in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, did not remove the jurisdiction of California state courts to hear such individual habeas claims, and that both the prison warden and the Receiver are proper parties to respond. The reasoning centered on the federal order's focus on systemic reforms rather than individual disputes, the state constitutional protection of habeas corpus jurisdiction, and the need to avoid leaving inmates without a remedy in state courts.

criminal lawfederal power

In this capital murder case, the defendant sought discovery of information about a vehicle stop and in-field showup conducted near the homicide, as well as a police report on initial eyewitness interviews that could not be located. The trial court found that law enforcement's untimely disclosure of field interview cards and photographs violated discovery rules and imposed a sanction by dismissing the special circumstance allegation. The appellate court held that a trial court's authority to impose partial dismissal as a discovery sanction is limited to situations where the federal Constitution requires it, and since no Brady violation or denial of a fair trial was shown here, the dismissal was improper.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a contract dispute arising after a fire destroyed an office building, where the owners hired J.C. Interiors, Inc. to rebuild the structure under an installment payment agreement; the builder abandoned the project after nonpayment of one draw, the owners hired another contractor, and both sides sued each other for breach, with three owners settling for $100,000 while one owner (Brawley) proceeded to trial. The jury found mutual breaches, awarding Brawley $19,800 in damages and the builder $32,551.52 in damages, after which the trial court offset the builder's award with the settlement to zero, entered judgment for Brawley, and awarded costs to the builder as prevailing party while denying attorney fees. The appellate court reversed the $19,800 judgment for Brawley and remanded for entry of a judgment awarding nothing to either party (while permitting reconsideration of costs), holding that under Code of Civil Procedure section 877 the value of the claims against the nonsettling party must be determined as the net amount after offsetting mutual damages before applying the settlement credit, and that Civil Code section 3260 grants discretion to find no prevailing party for attorney fees. The topics selected reflect the construction contract at issue and the procedural questions of settlement offsets and fee awards.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Ronald James Carroll's appeal from a trial court order extending his commitment to the state Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under California's Sexually Violent Predators Act. Carroll had been previously committed for two-year terms following convictions for rape and forcible oral copulation, and he challenged the application of 2006 amendments to sections 6604 and 6604.1 that changed recommitments to an indeterminate term rather than a fixed two-year extension. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, holding that the amended statutes applied to the petition filed and tried after their effective date, that the trial court had authority to extend the commitment, and that the indeterminate term was properly imposed following a finding that Carroll remained an SVP. The court rejected arguments that the amendments left no procedures for extensions or that prior law should control the term length.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a labor union, CDF Firefighters, suing two former members for breach of contract to collect fines imposed after their expulsion, while one member also sought a writ of mandate to reverse his expulsion and fine on grounds of procedural unfairness and futility of internal appeals. The trial court granted summary judgment to the union, finding that due process was provided, the expulsions and fines were valid, and internal remedies had not been exhausted. On appeal, the court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the union failed to meet its burden of proving the amount of the fines as proper restitution or as supported by the bylaws, and that failure to exhaust remedies did not concede the reasonableness of the damages. The court also noted issues with the joint and several liability imposed in the judgment, which lacked support in the bylaws.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over the proceeds of a $250,000 life insurance policy on Laci Peterson, with her husband Scott Peterson named as the beneficiary. After Scott Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder in a criminal trial, the administrator of Laci's estate moved for summary judgment in an interpleader action brought by the insurer, seeking to bar Scott from receiving the proceeds under Probate Code section 252. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the certified criminal conviction records, of which judicial notice was taken without objection, constituted unrebutted evidence that the killing was felonious and intentional. The court explained that under Probate Code section 254(b), such evidence satisfied the administrator's burden by a preponderance, and the absence of any contrary evidence from Scott meant no triable issue of fact existed.

criminal lawfamily lawproperty