The case involved the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services seeking dependency jurisdiction over 17-year-old Precious D. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b), alleging the mother's inability to adequately supervise or protect her due to the teenager's running away, associating with inappropriate people, and other incorrigible behaviors. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction and removed Precious from her mother's custody. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the orders, holding that jurisdiction under the "inability to supervise or protect" provision requires evidence of parental unfitness or neglectful conduct, which was lacking here as the problems stemmed from the child's own actions rather than any failure by the mother. The court reasoned that allowing jurisdiction without such a showing would violate due process principles by potentially leading to termination of parental rights without parental fault, and noted that alternative procedures exist under the Welfare and Institutions Code for addressing incorrigible minors.
A union member sued the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation certified as an employee organization, seeking a writ of mandate to compel an election of officers and directors and to invalidate recently amended bylaws that extended officers' terms and raised dues without member votes. The union argued the plaintiff failed to exhaust remedies before the county Employee Relations Commission, but the trial court ruled that internal union affairs governed by the Corporations Code and original bylaws fell outside the commission's authority, granted the writ, and awarded attorney fees under the private attorney general statute. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court was the proper forum to enforce corporate and bylaw requirements in this dispute and that the fee award was not an abuse of discretion. The decision rested on the distinction between internal governance matters and the commission's limited role in labor relations under the county ordinance.
This case involved a plaintiff who was a member of a prior class action settlement against his employer for alleged Labor Code violations, including failure to pay overtime and split-shift wages, with the settlement providing up to $2.5 million including $730,000 in penalties. After the settlement was approved and the case dismissed, the plaintiff filed a new suit seeking additional civil penalties under PAGA for overtime, wage statements, meal and rest periods, business expenses, and timely wages. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that res judicata barred the claims because they arose from the same primary rights and could have been raised in the prior action or by opting out of the class. The court reasoned that a court-approved settlement precludes subsequent litigation on the same cause of action, including related issues that could have been asserted, and the plaintiff had already benefited from the prior settlement.
The case involved petitioner Michael Donnell Brown, who faced multiple sexual offense charges against two minors and sought a writ of mandate after the trial court denied his motion to bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds. A jury had acquitted him of some counts, convicted him of a lesser included offense on one count, and hung on the remaining counts, with the court permitting retrial on certain charges. The court granted the petition, concluding that double jeopardy barred retrial of all specified counts because the acquittals necessarily resolved ultimate facts overlapping with the retried offenses. For one victim, acquittals covered the same five-month period as a retried count without evidence that the acquittals did not apply to it; for the other victim, an acquittal on continuous sexual abuse during the same 22-month interval as four other counts precluded retrial under precedents like Yeager v. United States. The decision rested on the principle that the jury's acquittals could not be speculatively disregarded when they decided elements essential to the remaining charges.
This case involved Rosemary Silguero, who was terminated by her new employer, Creteguard, after her former employer requested enforcement of a non-compete agreement that barred her from sales activities for 18 months. Silguero sued Creteguard for wrongful termination in violation of public policy under Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., claiming the termination enforced an illegal non-compete agreement. The trial court sustained Creteguard's demurrer, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Silguero stated a viable claim. The court reasoned that Business and Professions Code section 16600 voids contracts restraining lawful professions, reflecting a strong public policy for employee mobility and open competition, which Creteguard violated by firing her to respect the former employer's agreement.
This case involved a bankruptcy trustee suing three former officers of a defunct company for breach of fiduciary duty. After engaging in litigation conduct including discovery and settlement efforts, the defendants moved to compel arbitration under provisions in their employment agreements, which the trial court granted before dismissing the case when the trustee declined to proceed in arbitration. The Court of Appeal held that under the Federal Arbitration Act and California Arbitration Act, waiver of arbitration does not require relinquishment of a known right; instead, two defendants who conducted discovery waived the right by acting inconsistently with it because the arbitration rules allowed no discovery, while the third defendant who only sought to settle did not waive. The court therefore reversed the order compelling arbitration and the dismissal as to the two defendants who participated in discovery but affirmed as to the remaining defendant.