Victoria Marie Chavez

The case involved professional boxer Antonio Margarito appealing the denial of his petition for a writ of mandate to overturn the State Athletic Commission's revocation of his boxing license. The Commission revoked the license after inspectors discovered gauze knuckle pads adulterated with a hard, plaster-like substance in Margarito's hand wraps before a championship fight, in violation of professional boxing rule 323. Margarito argued that his trainer had inserted the pads without his knowledge, that strict or vicarious liability was improper, and that due process violations occurred due to a changed theory of liability and withheld forensic evidence. The court affirmed the revocation, holding that the boxing rules permitted strict liability for the violation without requiring proof of the boxer's knowledge or intent, and that no due process violations took place because the evidence supported the findings and the forensic results were not available at the time of the hearing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by City of Los Angeles employee Dan Mariscal to an administrative decision by the Employee Relations Board recognizing SEIU Local 721 as the exclusive bargaining representative for roughly 9,000 employees after the international SEIU consolidated several locals, including former Local 347, into the new regional entity. Mariscal petitioned for a writ of mandate, arguing that the merger process violated due process, that affected members should have voted separately, and that the changes raised a question of representation requiring a new election. The trial court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the statewide vote and hearings provided adequate process, that the merger produced no substantial change in representation or bargaining procedures, and that the ERB's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that Local 347's own governing documents were subordinate to the international union's authority to restructure locals.

labor & employment

In this case, petitioner Nicholas Torres, who had been released on a five-year parole term in 2005 after a conviction for a lewd act on a child, sought habeas corpus relief after the Board of Parole Hearings revoked his parole in February 2009 and retained him on parole in March 2009. Torres argued that under Penal Code section 3001(a), his parole had expired by operation of law in December 2008 because he had served three continuous years on parole without the Board retaining him during the required 30-day review period, even though he was returned to custody on a violation charge during that period. The court granted the petition, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to act in 2009. The core reasoning was that the statute mandates discharge unless the Board affirmatively retains the parolee for good cause within the 30-day window following three years of continuous parole, and the Board's inaction caused the term to expire regardless of the later custody status.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a minor's appeal from a juvenile court order declaring him a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for willfully violating a civil gang injunction by breaking its curfew provision on one occasion. The juvenile court had sustained one petition alleging the violation and dismissed another, placing the minor on informal probation. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that the minor was subject to the injunction because he was a documented gang member who had received personal service and had knowledge of its terms, that service on a parent was not required under applicable law, and that the injunction's restrictions did not violate the minor's constitutional rights to association or movement. The court also directed correction of certain minute orders to accurately reflect which petition was sustained.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case concerned a postjudgment motion to offset two monetary awards arising from a commercial dispute over a failed electronics joint venture and agency agreement between Pou Chen Corporation and MTS Products/Hsia. After trial, judgments were entered in favor of both sides, with BHE/GBMI receiving a much larger award against the MTS defendants; BHE/GBMI later assigned their unpaid judgment to Pou Chen, who sought to apply it against the smaller judgment it owed MTS. The MTS defendants opposed the offset, claiming priority for three contractual liens held by their attorneys and a bank. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of the offset motion, holding that the assigned BHE/GBMI judgment was superior to the liens under rules governing judgment priorities in the same action, as the liens were either subordinate by timing or did not qualify for special equitable treatment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the City of Anaheim's assessment of over $21 million in transient occupancy taxes, plus interest, against online travel companies for their hotel booking services, followed by the companies' filing of superior court actions for mandamus and declaratory relief without first paying the disputed amounts. The City demurred, arguing that article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution (the "pay first" rule) required payment before litigation, but the superior court overruled the demurrers. The Court of Appeal held that the constitutional provision applies only to actions against the state or state officers and does not extend to local tax disputes like this one. It further found no alternative legal basis in the city's ordinance, common law, or public policy to impose a pay-first requirement, particularly since the city had not previously collected or relied on such taxes from the companies. The petition for writ of mandate was therefore denied.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the City of Claremont denying a business permit application by Darrell Kruse for a proposed medical marijuana dispensary, as the use was not listed or similar to any permitted use in the city's land use and development code, and Kruse began operating the dispensary anyway. The city then enacted a moratorium on such uses and sued for injunctive relief, resulting in a trial court judgment granting a permanent injunction barring the dispensary's operation anywhere in the city. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the dispensary constituted a nuisance per se under the municipal code and that the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program did not preempt the city's local zoning and land use authority.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

Leslie Lockhart sued her former employer MVM, Inc., a federal contractor providing staff at the San Pedro ICE facility, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and related public policy claims. The trial court granted MVM's motion for summary judgment on all claims, concluding they were barred by the federal enclave doctrine because the relevant events took place on federal land acquired by the United States in 1927. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after reviewing the evidence, including a judicially noticeable grant deed establishing the enclave boundaries, and found no triable issue that the termination decision and related actions occurred outside the enclave. It held that state law claims do not apply to events arising on federal enclaves, though federal antidiscrimination remedies remain available.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

In this case, Cardiff Equities sued O'Neel and related entities for breach of a partnership agreement that contained an arbitration clause and a separate guaranty agreement that did not. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration based primarily on the partnership agreement and stayed the civil proceedings. Cardiff then filed a voluntary dismissal of its complaint before any arbitration had commenced. The Court of Appeal held that nothing in the law prevents a plaintiff from dismissing the action after an order compelling arbitration but before arbitration begins, and that the dismissal removes the trial court's jurisdiction to order the parties to complete arbitration.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved two women who alleged they were sexually abused as children in 1968 and 1976 while residents at a Masonic Homes facility for children. They sued the operator of the home under a 2003 statute that temporarily revived expired childhood sexual abuse claims against entities that owed a duty of care, seeking damages for negligent supervision and related torts based on the conduct of a houseparent's husband and an employee. A jury awarded them substantial damages, but the appellate court reversed the judgments and remanded for a new trial. The core reasoning was that the trial court gave prejudicially erroneous jury instructions on the level of knowledge or notice an entity must have had to revive a lapsed claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(c), along with related issues on the elements of the tort claims that would need to be retried.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Stone Street Capital's lawsuit seeking declaratory relief to compel the California State Lottery Commission to honor an assignment of the final three annual payments of a lottery prize originally won by Linda Foster, based on a sale agreement and an Arizona court order modifying a divorce decree. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Commission, dismissing the action, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that the California Lottery Act's specific restrictions on prize assignments (Gov. Code § 8880.325), which limit assignments to narrow exceptions like those involving conservators or guardians, control over the more general provisions of the California Uniform Commercial Code that treat lottery winnings as assignable accounts. The court further held that the Arizona judgment did not qualify as an "appropriate judicial order" under the Lottery Act and rejected arguments that the UCC provisions impliedly repealed or overrode the Act's limits.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned a contract dispute arising after the Los Angeles Unified School District terminated its original contractor for a new elementary school project and entered a completion agreement with Hayward Construction Company that included a guaranteed maximum price of $4.5 million plus a performance bond from Great American Insurance Company. The agreement incorporated pre-punch lists of remaining and corrective work, but disputes later arose over additional defects not listed on those documents, leading to costs exceeding the cap and the District advancing extra funds under reservation of rights. The trial court granted the District summary adjudication and judgment on the pleadings, ruling that Hayward and Great American were bound by the contract terms. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and the associated attorney fee award, concluding that triable issues existed regarding contract interpretation, the scope of work, and potential rescission or restitution claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned an appeal by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services from a juvenile court order directing retroactive AFDC-FC foster care payments to a maternal grandmother who was caring for three detained children. The juvenile court had issued the order after delays in completing the federal ASFA approval process for the grandmother's home, which involved background checks and home repairs. DCFS argued that the order improperly bypassed administrative procedures and infringed on separation of powers. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the caregiver was required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief on the funding issue and that the juvenile court lacked authority to mandate the retroactive payments.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned the timeliness of a prevailing plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c) after the trial court denied defendants' special motion to strike in an employment dispute involving claims of wrongful termination, discrimination, and defamation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of $53,651.47, holding that the motion was timely because the 60-day filing period under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702 begins to run only upon entry of final judgment in the action, not upon entry of the earlier prejudgment appealable order denying the anti-SLAPP motion. The court reasoned that the rule's language creates ambiguity when applied to prejudgment orders and that commencing the period at final judgment promotes consistency for statutory fee claims in civil cases. The opinion also upheld the trial court's findings on jurisdiction, frivolousness of the motion and appeal, and sufficiency of reasons stated for the award.

procedurefree speechlabor & employment

The case involved Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc. and James Pascucci suing NBC Universal, Inc., NBC Studios, Inc., and Jeffrey Zucker for breach of confidence after Pascucci shared ideas and materials for a proposed reality television show called Hollywood Screentest under a confidentiality agreement. The trial court granted NBC's motion for summary judgment on all causes of action and sustained Zucker's demurrer without leave to amend. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that appellants failed to raise triable issues of material fact on the element of use because NBC presented undisputed evidence of independent creation of similar programming concepts. The court found it unnecessary to address the demurrer ruling or other alternative arguments.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's termination of employee Kenneth Flippin, a truck driver, after he was discovered sleeping in a hammock under his work vehicle during duty hours, followed by insubordinate conduct toward supervisors. The Board of Civil Service Commissioners upheld the discharge following a Skelly due process hearing, but the trial court found the penalty excessive and ordered reconsideration while rejecting claims of due process violations. On appeal, the court held that substantial evidence supported waiver of the Skelly hearing rights and that no impartiality violation occurred despite the investigating manager also serving as hearing officer, given multiple levels of subsequent neutral review. The court further ruled that discharge was within the agency's discretion for the sustained charges of sleeping on duty, insubordination, and misconduct reflecting on the city, reversing the trial court's penalty reduction. The matter was remanded with directions to deny the petition for administrative mandamus.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved criminal charges against Michael Arthur Cooper for theft from an elder or dependent adult, alleging he misappropriated over $50,000 from his elderly neighbor Mathilda Nelson through powers of attorney and other means between 2001 and 2003. The trial court dismissed the information after excluding two videotaped interviews of Nelson, a home tour video, and related expert testimony on her mental capacity, ruling that the statements violated the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights under Crawford v. Washington. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal, holding that the interviews were nontestimonial because they were conducted primarily for welfare and protective purposes rather than to establish facts for prosecution, so the Confrontation Clause did not bar their admission. The decision rested on distinguishing the statements from testimonial hearsay as defined in Crawford and Davis v. Washington, while noting other potential evidentiary objections remained unaddressed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Pugliese v. Superior Court, Michele Pugliese sued her former husband Dante for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil rights violations, alleging a pattern of physical and emotional domestic abuse throughout their marriage that ended in 2001 for physical acts and 2004 for emotional acts. The trial court granted Dante's motion in limine to exclude evidence of acts occurring more than three years before the 2004 complaint, applying the statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.15. The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate, holding that under section 340.15 the limitations period for domestic violence claims runs from the last act in a continuing course of abusive conduct, allowing recovery for earlier acts within the marital relationship. The decision rests on the statutory text defining the commencement of the action and the nature of ongoing domestic abuse between spouses.

family lawtorts & liabilityprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Kenneth Rasmuson, who had been committed as a sexually violent predator under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act and sought conditional release from Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6608. The trial court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Rasmuson had not shown it was unlikely he would engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if released. On appeal, the court reversed the order and granted the petition for conditional release. The appellate court determined that the evidence, including testimony from treating psychiatrists about the effects of antiandrogen medication and Rasmuson's completion of treatment phases, demonstrated that his condition had changed such that supervised outpatient treatment would sufficiently mitigate any risk of reoffense.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned homeowners Eduardo and Rafael Gil who sued Bank of America after an insurance check for fire damage to their home, made payable to them, their lender Washington Mutual, and an adjuster, was deposited into their contractor's account without the lender's required indorsement, resulting in the contractor abandoning the repairs. The plaintiffs alleged negligence, conversion under California Uniform Commercial Code section 3420, and misrepresentation by the bank and its manager. The trial court sustained the bank's demurrer to the second amended complaint, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that common law negligence claims are displaced by the UCC's specific conversion provisions when a check lacks a necessary indorsement, limiting damages to the plaintiffs' interest in the instrument, and that the misrepresentation claims lacked sufficient factual allegations.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability