Elwood G. H. Lui

In Melander v. Hughes Aircraft Co., an employee appealed the denial of his petition to vacate an arbitration award that arose from his suspension and discharge under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between his employer and union. The court held that the employee lacked standing to petition to vacate the award because the CBA allowed grievances to be submitted to arbitration only by the union or management, and the employee was not made a party to the arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1280. The core reasoning was that under sections 1285 and 1280, only parties to the arbitration agreement may seek to vacate an award, and here the union represented the employee without any provision granting individuals independent arbitration rights. The judgment denying the petition was therefore affirmed.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this 1987 California Court of Appeal case, the law firm Shea & Gould appealed a trial court order imposing $2,500 in sanctions against it under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 for filing a motion for a protective order to limit or stay a deposition in a pending lawsuit between Weisman and Bower involving claims such as conversion, fraud, and breach of contract. The appellate court held that sanctions were not warranted because the motion was not totally without merit in light of the case circumstances and the trial court's broad discretion to grant protective orders, and the record showed no bad faith or intent to harass or delay. However, the court noted that the trial court had separate authority under section 2019(b)(1) to require payment of the opposing party's costs and expenses. The matter was reversed and remanded for the trial court to consider exercising that discretion.

procedure

Patrick O'Shea sued his former employer, General Telephone Company of California, for slander, interference with prospective advantage, and related claims after his supervisors provided information about his termination and work history to the California Highway Patrol during a background investigation for O'Shea's application as a patrol officer. The statements described O'Shea's suspensions, customer disputes, and discharge for violating company ethics. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that the communications were absolutely privileged, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court held that an absolute privilege applies to statements made in response to official inquiries by law enforcement agencies investigating candidates for public-safety positions, rendering questions of truth, malice, or consent unnecessary to resolve.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a will contest by Berenice Moises challenging an undated and unsigned addition to the back of a 1971 holographic codicil to her uncle Earl Archer's 1966 will, which left the residue of the estate to Donald Belcher instead of other heirs. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the contest and admitting the full codicil to probate. The Court of Appeal held that the addition validly adopted the signature from the front of the integrated codicil as a matter of law, satisfying execution requirements under the Probate Code. However, the allegation that Archer lacked testamentary intent was a legal conclusion rather than an ultimate fact, though the defect could potentially be cured by amendment, so the court erred in denying leave to amend on that ground and remanded the case accordingly.

family lawprocedure

The case involved the heirs of Charles Coates, who was fatally injured while riding a dirtbike on a trail in a recreational park owned by the defendants; the heirs sued for wrongful death alleging negligence in the trail's design and maintenance. Before entering the park, Coates had signed a general release assuming the risks of the activity. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the release, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that a decedent's preinjury express assumption of risk via contract bars a wrongful death action if the contract does not violate public policy and the risk encountered was inherent in the activity or contemplated by the parties, as was true here under the standards from Tunkl v. Regents of University of California.

torts & liability

The case involved a doctor suing an expert accounting witness who allegedly prepared a false valuation of goodwill in the doctor's medical practice and gave false testimony during the doctor's divorce proceedings, leading to the doctor paying his ex-wife for nonexistent goodwill. The plaintiff claimed abuse of process and infliction of emotional distress. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case, which the Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that the absolute privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2, for statements made in judicial proceedings barred the claims regardless of whether the testimony was false.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a malicious prosecution claim by Jacques Interiors against claims adjuster Edwin Petrak and his company after Petrak investigated a fire loss for Sentry Insurance. Petrak directed an investigator to stop work and issue a misleading report that supported Sentry suing Jacques for subrogation, while concealing evidence that pointed elsewhere. When the deception emerged in discovery, Sentry dismissed its suit against Jacques with prejudice. Jacques then prevailed at trial with awards of compensatory and punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence that Petrak acted with malice and without probable cause in actively causing the underlying action to proceed.

torts & liability

The case involved attorneys who had entered a contingency fee agreement to represent four sisters contesting their brother's will but later sought to withdraw after concluding the case lacked merit based on new evidence and the clients refused to settle. After the court granted the attorneys' motion to withdraw, the clients settled the will contest with new counsel. The Court of Appeal held that the attorneys were not entitled to recover fees in quantum meruit because their withdrawal was voluntary and without good cause. The core reasoning was that a client's refusal to accept a recommended settlement does not justify an attorney's withdrawal from the case, and an attorney who abandons representation without sufficient cause forfeits the right to compensation even if the clients later recover.

procedure

The case concerned whether wages earned by a worker in public sector employment at UCLA during the relevant base period could qualify her for state disability insurance (SDI) benefits after she became disabled while working for a private employer. The Appeals Board denied the claim because those wages were not subject to SDI tax and instead fell under the separate nonindustrial disability insurance (NDI) plan for public employees; the trial court had granted a writ ordering benefits. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Unemployment Insurance Code limits SDI eligibility to base period wages subject to SDI tax and provides no exception allowing use of NDI-covered wages, as the programs are distinct with separate funding and eligibility rules.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute over whether Pacific Bell discriminated against employee Leona Grigsby under California Labor Code section 132a by denying her pension service credits for a period of industrial disability when she received a disability pension and worked fewer than 1,000 hours. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board had ruled in favor of the employee and awarded additional credits and increased compensation, but the court reviewed whether ERISA preempted that state-law determination. The court held that the Board's decision was erroneous and annulled the award. Its core reasoning was that the employer's pension plan incorporated the exact language of federal ERISA regulations permitting the denial of service credits for years with under 1,000 hours of work, including those due to disability, thereby triggering ERISA preemption of the conflicting state antidiscrimination provision.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case involved a dispute over promissory notes in which plaintiffs moved for summary adjudication of issues against defendants including petitioner Sadlier. The superior court granted the motion on four issues after a hearing held more than 60 days after defendants' first general appearance. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate, arguing that the motion was premature because it was filed and served less than 60 days after the general appearance and before defendants had answered the complaint. The Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that section 437c permits the motion to proceed because it is deemed made at the hearing (which occurred after the 60-day period) and does not require an answer to have been filed beforehand. The court noted that the statute allows the trial court to direct an earlier hearing upon good cause and that current law imposes no answer requirement for such motions.

procedure

In Ford v. Shearson Lehman American Express, Inc., plaintiff Benson Ford, Jr. sued his former psychotherapist, bookkeeper, Shearson (his securities broker), and others for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, negligence, and related claims arising from the alleged fraudulent liquidation and dissipation of his stock holdings. Shearson moved to compel arbitration under customer brokerage agreements Ford had signed with its predecessors, but Ford opposed on grounds that the agreements were obtained through fraud and undue influence as part of an overall scheme. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Ford's complaint adequately alleged the agreements were unenforceable under tort principles (fraud vitiating the contracts) and void under contract law (lack of voluntary assent due to domination by codefendants). The court applied the Federal Arbitration Act but concluded that these threshold issues of contract validity must be resolved judicially rather than by arbitration. The order denying arbitration was therefore affirmed.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involves Dr. Keith Alan Lasko appealing the denial of his petition for a writ of mandate against Valley Presbyterian Hospital and other respondents, seeking readmission to their medical staffs and withdrawal of reports submitted to the Board of Medical Quality Assurance regarding restrictions on his privileges. The trial court denied the petition, finding that Lasko had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of abuse of discretion by the hospitals. The appellate court reviewed the distinct factual circumstances at each hospital, including suspension proceedings and hearings at Valley Presbyterian Hospital and timeliness requirements for hearing requests at Van Nuys Community Hospital, while addressing contentions about the proper limitations period and procedural fairness in the administrative process.

procedurehealthcare

This case involves a former wife who filed a complaint against her ex-husband alleging breach of their 1975 marital settlement agreement (incorporated into a 1976 dissolution judgment), fraud in inducing a 1977 modification of spousal support, an intentional tort based on the same facts, and intentional infliction of emotional distress from alleged alienation of their child. The trial court sustained the husband's demurrer and dismissed the action. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the first three causes of action were barred by res judicata due to its prior decision in a related proceeding (Segel I) involving similar claims of fraud and support modification, and that the fourth cause of action failed to state a cognizable claim under California law because the alleged conduct occurred in the context of a custody dispute between parents.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Mercury Casualty Company seeking a refund of taxes it paid to the State Board of Equalization under protest for the years 1971-1973, 1977, and 1978, claiming the taxes were erroneously assessed on interest from premium notes. The trial court ruled against Mercury, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that Mercury failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by not filing a timely formal written claim for refund as required by Revenue and Taxation Code sections 12978 through 12980 and 13102. Mercury's notations on payment checks and arguments for futility, equitable tolling, or relation back to a prior case were insufficient to satisfy the statutory prerequisites for a refund suit.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved former spouses who had agreed in a 1977 stipulated court order to a fixed, non-modifiable spousal support payment of $60,000 over five years, after which the ex-husband fully paid and support ended. The ex-wife later sought additional support based on the original marital settlement agreement, claiming the 1977 order was only temporary. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to modify or extend support, reasoning that under Civil Code section 4801 the order terminated at the end of the specified period and the parties' stipulation and resulting order clearly provided it was non-modifiable with no retained jurisdiction for further awards.

family law

The case involved plaintiffs, unincorporated associations of Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian ancestry, who sued the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. They alleged discrimination after being denied permission to participate in the 1984 Summer Olympics opening ceremonies as representatives of their ancestral homelands, which the International Olympic Committee did not recognize separately from the Soviet Union. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the complaint raised a nonjusticiable political question because it sought judicial intervention in matters of international recognition and relations between nations, which are committed to the executive branch under the U.S. Constitution. It drew on a similar New York case involving Taiwan's participation in the 1980 Olympics to support this conclusion.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved a contract dispute between El Camino Community College District and Information Associates over a personnel/payroll computer software system. After the district sued IA for breach of contract and fraud in superior court, IA petitioned to compel arbitration in Rochester, New York, based on arbitration clauses in two later license and programming agreements signed by district vice presidents. The superior court granted the petition and ordered arbitration to proceed in New York, relying on forum selection clause precedents. The Court of Appeal granted the district's petition for a writ of mandate and directed the superior court to vacate its order, holding that the agreements were not enforceable obligations of the district because its board of trustees had not approved or ratified them as required by Education Code section 81655, and principles of estoppel did not apply to override the statutory requirement for a public entity.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between contractor MJM, Inc. and homeowners over a written construction agreement that included an arbitration clause. After a dispute arose regarding cancellation of the contract due to financing issues, MJM obtained a default arbitration award and petitioned the trial court to confirm it. The homeowners opposed confirmation, citing lack of understanding of the proceedings due to limited education and language barriers, and sought relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, while also alleging fraud. The trial court denied confirmation of the award and vacated it. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that section 473 relief was available to oppose confirmation and that the trial court had not abused its discretion in granting it.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In People v. Bencomo, the defendant was charged with conspiracy, possession, and sale of cocaine and filed motions to suppress evidence from a search of his home, claiming that police improperly obtained his unlisted name and address from the telephone company without a warrant in violation of privacy rights under California law, and that officers failed to comply with the knock-notice requirements of Penal Code section 1531 when they climbed over a locked gate and entered the residence to execute the warrant. After the trial court denied the motions to quash the warrant and suppress the evidence, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count pursuant to a plea agreement and appealed the denial. The court examined whether the telephone company disclosure violated the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the officers' entry and announcements satisfied statutory knock-notice rules, considering precedents such as People v. Chapman and federal standards under 18 U.S.C. section 3109.

criminal lawprocedure