Brad R. Hill

In Austin v. Simpson, the daughter of the decedent petitioned to invalidate approximately $185,000 in gifts made by check to the daughter of the decedent's former wife, arguing that the transfers violated Probate Code section 21350 because the recipient was a care custodian of a dependent adult. The trial court ruled the gifts valid after finding the appellant had not proven the recipient qualified as a care custodian, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court held that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the recipient's limited assistance—such as occasional meals and transportation to appointments—did not rise to the level of substantial ongoing health or social services required to establish care custodian status under the statute. Because the appellant failed to meet her initial burden, the presumption of invalidity never arose and no further exceptions needed to be considered.

family lawproperty

In People v. Dowl, the defendant was stopped by police and found with approximately 66 grams of marijuana packaged in multiple small baggies, along with a medical marijuana identification card obtained after a physician's recommendation for chronic pain. A jury convicted him of transporting marijuana and possessing it for sale, rejecting his compassionate use defense under California's Compassionate Use Act, while acquitting him on gang-related charges. On appeal, the defendant argued insufficient evidence supported the convictions and that the trial court erred in refusing to bifurcate the gang allegations. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the packaging and circumstances provided substantial evidence of intent to sell, and that a qualified narcotics officer could opine on sales without also qualifying as a medical marijuana expert, as the burden remained on the defendant to prove the defense.

criminal law

The case involved five individuals who petitioned for a writ of mandate to inspect the membership list, books, and records of a nonprofit religious corporation, the Pacific Coast Khalsa Diwan Society, asserting they were members under certain bylaws. The trial court granted the petition after concluding the individuals were members and imposing conditions on disclosure. On appeal, the court reversed, holding there was no substantial evidence to support the validity of the bylaws presented or the respondents' claimed membership status in the corporation, which had no members according to the appellants.

religious libertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Manson, assignee of a 1999 default judgment in a personal injury action arising from a car accident, appealing the trial court's order setting aside the default and judgment against Paula Black. Black had been served with documents naming a different defendant and, after learning of the judgment against her years later, moved to vacate it on grounds of mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, and improper service. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion by granting equitable relief because the judgment was entered without proper notice to Black and an assignment of the judgment did not prevent her from raising defenses that existed against the original plaintiff.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved an insurance company suing a trucking company for negligence, alleging that a fire originating in the defendant's truck damaged the insured's truck while both were parked at a repair yard. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant after finding no triable issues of material fact on breach of duty or causation. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the defendant failed to present admissible evidence to negate the plaintiff's claims and could not rely on factually deficient interrogatory responses or other improper evidence to establish the absence of disputed facts regarding the fire's cause or the defendant's knowledge of defects. The appellate court determined that multiple purported undisputed facts lacked support from admissible materials after sustaining objections to the defendant's proffered evidence.

proceduretorts & liability

Patterson Flying Service was fined $5,000 by the county agricultural commissioner for violating Food and Agricultural Code section 12973 after an aerial pesticide application of Dimethoate drifted onto an adjacent property and exposed a person, creating an actual health hazard in breach of the product's label directions against contact or drift. Following a hearing, the commissioner’s decision was upheld on appeal by the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the trial court denied Patterson’s petition for a writ of administrative mandamus. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the specific appeal procedures in Food and Agricultural Code section 12999.5 applied rather than the full Administrative Procedure Act, that the commissioner’s findings were supported by substantial evidence of offsite drift and hazard, and that the penalty was within the agency’s discretion under the applicable regulations.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

The case concerned whether Essex Insurance owed the City of Bakersfield a duty to defend or indemnify it in the Navarro lawsuit, which alleged that the City created a dangerous condition of public property during its D.A.R.E. Fright Night event that contributed to a traffic accident on a nearby highway. The trial court ruled for Essex based on an auto exclusion in the City's commercial general liability policy that barred coverage for bodily injury arising out of the use of any auto. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the exclusion did not apply because the City had no ownership, maintenance, or other connection to the vehicles involved in the accident and the claim centered on the City's alleged creation of a dangerous condition rather than auto-related conduct. The court reasoned that the policy language was not plain and clear enough to defeat the City's reasonable expectation of coverage for such claims and that the exclusion should not be interpreted to eliminate coverage where the insured could not have obtained separate auto insurance for the loss.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between the Bakersfield Elementary Teachers Association and the Bakersfield City School District over the district's 2003 layoff of certificated employees due to budget uncertainties. The district classified many teachers and counselors holding internship credentials, emergency permits, or similar credentials as temporary employees, issuing layoff notices under Education Code provisions for particular kinds of service reductions, while treating others as probationary. The association challenged the classifications as improper under the Education Code, arguing that many temporary employees were entitled to probationary status, which affected layoff procedures, hearings, seniority, and reemployment rights. The court held that the district's policy of classifying employees solely based on credentials was invalid, affirmed the requirement to reinstate and reclassify misclassified employees for the 2003-2004 school year consistent with their correct status, and remanded for determinations on backpay and benefits while reversing aspects of the relief beyond that year and allowing the district to present mitigation evidence.

labor & employment

This case involved a negligence claim by a police sergeant and his wife against an auto body shop, Maaco, after the officer was severely injured when his patrol car was struck by a stolen truck. The thief had taken the unlocked truck with keys in the ignition from Maaco's fenced and alarmed storage lot, then fled from police before the collision. The trial court granted summary judgment to Maaco, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the shop had no duty to third parties to prevent injury by a vehicle thief absent special circumstances beyond simply leaving keys in an unattended vehicle. The court reasoned that prior thefts from the lot and police suggestions did not rise to the level of special circumstances under established California precedent like Richards v. Stanley, as the lot had security measures and there was no evidence of inviting incompetent drivers.

torts & liability