Robert M. Mallano

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.

family law

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.

labor & employmentelectionsbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Samantha C. appealed a trial court judgment denying her petition for a writ of mandate and declaratory relief, in which she challenged determinations by the Harbor Regional Center and the State Department of Developmental Services that she did not qualify as having a developmental disability under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and thus was ineligible for related services. She also contested the validity of certain provisions in title 17 of the California Code of Regulations defining developmental disabilities. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's upholding of the regulations as consistent with the statutory definition in Welfare and Institutions Code section 4512(a), which includes mental retardation and closely related disabling conditions requiring similar treatment. However, the court reversed the finding that Samantha lacked a developmental disability, concluding that her condition stemming from birth injuries, including hypoxia and resulting impairments, fell within the fifth category of section 4512(a) because it requires treatment similar to that for individuals with mental retardation.

civil rightshealthcare

In Greenspan v. LADT, LLC, a trust sued two affiliated companies and their controlling individual for breach of contract and related claims stemming from a 2004 purchase agreement involving the sale of an LLC interest and commercial real estate units in a converted building. The trial court compelled arbitration before a JAMS arbitrator, who issued an interim and final award finding in favor of the trust on the contract claim, imposing joint and several liability on the companies, and awarding attorney fees. The trial court confirmed the award, and the companies appealed, arguing that joint liability was not arbitrable, the award was untimely under JAMS rules, and the arbitrator should have been disqualified due to a separate civil suit filed against him by the individual defendant. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, reasoning that JAMS rules delegated arbitrability decisions to the arbitrator, the liability finding was rationally related to the contract, timeliness interpretations were not subject to merits review, and the suit against the arbitrator was barred by arbitral immunity without creating evident partiality.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Valencia v. Smyth, home buyers sued multiple parties including sellers, brokers, and title companies for fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and related claims stemming from a real estate transaction in which ownership was allegedly concealed and funds were misappropriated. Certain defendants moved to compel arbitration under a clause in the standard California residential purchase agreement. The court decided that the agreement's choice-of-law provision incorporated the Federal Arbitration Act only for contract interpretation and not its procedural rules, leaving the California Arbitration Act applicable. Under the CAA, the trial court had discretion to deny arbitration and join all parties in one judicial action to avoid conflicting rulings on common issues of fact or law involving non-signatories, and the appellate court affirmed that exercise of discretion.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

This case involved a father's appeal from a juvenile court order on a supplemental petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 that terminated a prior home-of-parent placement for his daughter A.O. and removed her from his custody after his arrest and incarceration for burglary and parole violation. The court placed A.O. with her stepmother in the same home where she had been living. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the prior placement was no longer effective to protect the child. It further ruled that provisions allowing an incarcerated parent to avoid initial dependency jurisdiction under section 300(g) by arranging care do not apply to supplemental petitions seeking to change an existing placement.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

In D.C. v. R.R., a high school student pursuing an entertainment career and his parents sued fellow students and their parents after the students posted threatening and derogatory messages on the student's public website, including references to his perceived sexual orientation and threats of bodily harm; the claims included violations of California's hate crimes statutes as well as defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. One student defendant and his parents filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing that the suit targeted protected speech on a public issue. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the lawsuit did not arise from speech connected to a public issue. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the defendants failed to show the complaint was subject to the anti-SLAPP statute because the posted messages did not concern a public issue, regardless of whether they were intended as jokes.

free speechprocedurecivil rightstorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Gravillis purchased a home under a standard California residential purchase agreement containing an arbitration clause and later sued his brokers for failing to disclose extensive structural damage that made the home uninhabitable, asserting claims including breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and violation of the unfair competition law. After the trial court compelled arbitration, the arbitrator ruled in the plaintiff's favor and awarded damages and costs. The brokers petitioned to vacate the award, arguing that the arbitrator committed legal errors that should be subject to merits review because the agreement required the award to follow California substantive law. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's confirmation of the award, holding that the arbitration agreement did not explicitly and unambiguously provide for expanded judicial review beyond the limited grounds in the California Arbitration Act.

propertyprocedure

Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. sued the City of Pico Rivera after the city terminated their bus stop maintenance contract without renewal and awarded a new contract to a competitor without competitive bidding, seeking a writ of mandate and declaratory relief to enforce state Public Contract Code and municipal bidding requirements. The city responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the claims as involving protected speech on a public issue, which the trial court granted along with attorney fees. The appellate court reversed, concluding that even if a public issue was involved, the claims were based on alleged violations of bidding laws rather than any statement, writing, or conduct by the city in furtherance of its free speech or petition rights. Accordingly, the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply, and the plaintiff was not required to show a probability of prevailing at the pleading stage.

business & regulatoryprocedurefree speech

In this case under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (lemon law), plaintiff Paul Lukather leased a new 2005 Cadillac from a GM dealer that developed a recurring, unrepairable electronic stability control malfunction after several service visits; GM conceded the vehicle qualified as a lemon but disputed whether it had promptly offered restitution as required by Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2) and whether any delay was willful. After a bench trial, the court awarded Lukather damages, a civil penalty, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees and costs. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that service logs and trial evidence supported findings of a statutory violation and willfulness, that GM's mitigation defense was unavailable because it would reward the manufacturer's own delay, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding interest and fees. The opinion rejected GM's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and to the remedies granted.

business & regulatory

In Eulloqui v. Superior Court, petitioner Francisco Eulloqui sought a writ of mandate after the trial court denied his discovery motion in a habeas corpus proceeding challenging his 1998 murder conviction. The motion requested review of Detective Eagleson's personnel file for complaints involving dishonesty, fabrication of evidence, unauthorized payments to informants, and other Brady material, based on new evidence that key witness Joseph Aflague had been a paid informant. The court concluded that petitioner failed to establish a plausible factual scenario of misconduct for most categories under Pitchess standards but made a sufficient showing under Brady for complaints alleging failure to report payments or incentives to informants before May 1998. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part, directing the trial court to order limited disclosure from the personnel file while denying relief on the remaining requests.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Irvin Daniel Gomez's appeal from a trial court judgment that revoked his probation and imposed a prison sentence after he was found to have violated probation conditions by failing to report to his probation officer, pay restitution, verify employment, or attend counseling. The trial court admitted a probation report based on electronic records showing these failures, over the defendant's objection that it was inadmissible hearsay lacking personal knowledge and violating due process confrontation rights. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the probation report constituted admissible documentary evidence in a probation revocation hearing. The court reasoned that the confrontation clause does not apply to such hearings, that live testimony from the report's preparers would not have aided the inquiry given the records' nature, and that due process was satisfied under precedents allowing such evidence when uncontradicted.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the validity of 2006 amendments to California insurance regulations that allow consumer interveners to recover advocacy fees and expenses for participating in rate-setting proceedings even when the Insurance Commissioner approves or resolves an insurer's rate application through settlement or other means without holding a formal hearing. The Association of California Insurance Companies and related groups challenged the amendments as conflicting with Insurance Code sections 1861.05 and 1861.10, which were enacted by Proposition 103 to require Commissioner approval of rate changes and permit consumer participation. The trial court upheld the regulations and awarded compensation to intervener The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the regulations are consistent with the statutes and reasonably necessary to implement the voter-approved scheme for public involvement in rate reviews. The court also confirmed that section 1861.10(b) authorizes compensation awards in such proceedings.

business & regulatory

The case arose from a commercial landlord's breach of lease lawsuit against the California Department of General Services, which resulted in a money judgment that included postjudgment interest at 10 percent. The State paid only 7 percent interest, citing article XV, section 1 of the California Constitution, and the trial court later ordered it to pay the balance at the higher rate. The Court of Appeal held that the 10 percent portion of the judgment was void because no statute authorized a rate above the constitutional default of 7 percent for judgments against the State, making it subject to collateral attack even after the judgment became final. It further ruled that the postjudgment enforcement order was appealable as one giving effect to a void judgment and reversed with directions to vacate the excess interest award.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In D.C. v. Harvard-Westlake School, a student and his parents sued a private school under California's hate crimes statutes (Civil Code sections 51.7 and 52.1) and common-law theories after classmates posted death threats on the student's website, which the school allegedly failed to address adequately. The enrollment contract required arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled for the school on all claims and awarded it over $521,000 in expenses and attorney fees. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court should have determined whether the arbitrator could impose costs and fees that would not have been available in court, given that the hate crimes claims involve unwaivable statutory rights under precedents like Armendariz, and that the statutes permit attorney fees only for prevailing plaintiffs. Because the trial court failed to resolve these issues and instead only confirmed that arbitration was proper, the judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings to prevent improper awards against the plaintiffs.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerned a dispute among primary insurers over equitable contribution for defense costs in an underlying federal lawsuit alleging contamination of real property by their common insureds. OneBeacon defended the insureds starting in 1999 and sought contribution from FFIC and ICW for earlier defense costs, but the trial court limited recovery based on defects in notice and tender. The appellate court reversed in part, ruling that OneBeacon could recover contribution from both insurers beginning in 1999. It held that an insurer's obligation to contribute arises upon notice of litigation if a diligent inquiry would disclose potential exposure, thereby affording the opportunity to investigate and participate in the defense, as established in California Shoppers and Unigard.

business & regulatoryprocedure