Alex C. McDonald

David Jay Agosto appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of mandate seeking reinstatement to his former administrative position as vice-president of Cuyamaca College and backpay after the District declined to renew his contract. The case centered on whether Agosto had statutory or property rights to the administrative role under Education Code provisions like section 72411, or whether he could only be reassigned to a faculty position. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment denying reinstatement, relying on Barthuli v. Board of Trustees to conclude that community college administrators lack any right to return to administrative positions upon nonrenewal. The court rejected Agosto's arguments regarding notice defects, waiver, inconsistent backpay awards, and evidentiary exclusions, emphasizing that the statutory scheme provides no property interest in the specific administrative post.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a minor, A.G., who was the subject of a juvenile court petition under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 601 and 602 alleging violations of Vehicle Code sections 23136 and 22349 along with San Diego's curfew ordinance. The trial court found true the allegations of speeding and curfew violation, dismissed the alcohol-related count, and placed A.G. on six months' probation. On appeal, A.G. contended that a true finding on the curfew violation required proof of a prior warning citation, that discrepancies between the curfew ordinance and its codification in the municipal code violated due process, and that the ordinance's exemptions violated equal protection and implicated First Amendment concerns. The court analyzed these challenges, including whether the ordinance's defenses for supervised activities were sufficiently narrow and whether the discrepancy between the enacted ordinance and its codification affected its validity.

criminal lawcivil rightsfamily law

The case concerned Pennsylvania General Insurance Company's lawsuit against American Safety Indemnity Company (ASIC) seeking equitable contribution for defense and settlement costs that Pennsylvania General had paid on behalf of a framing subcontractor in an underlying construction defect action. The subcontractor had completed its work before ASIC's commercial general liability policy took effect, and ASIC had denied coverage based on policy exclusions for pre-existing damage and requirements that an occurrence happen during its policy period. The trial court granted summary judgment to ASIC, concluding there was no potential for coverage under its policy. On appeal, the court analyzed the policy language defining occurrence and coverage triggers, distinguishing between the timing of the insured's causal conduct and the resulting property damage, while considering precedents on continuous or progressive damage claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Peter Milosavljevic's appeal from his jury convictions on 38 counts of rape and related offenses against multiple victims, along with true findings on enhancements and two prior strikes, resulting in a sentence of 965 years to life. Milosavljevic argued that the trial court gave flawed or omitted unanimity instructions on certain counts, that evidence was insufficient as to one victim, that no definition was provided for 'intoxicating agent' under Penal Code section 222, that cumulative error occurred, and that a fine was excessive. The Court of Appeal rejected the claims, holding that the modified CALCRIM No. 3501 unanimity instruction adequately ensured juror agreement on specific acts for each offense, that any instructional omissions were not prejudicial, and that other asserted errors did not warrant reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Sanchez v. San Diego County Office of Education, parents sued SDCOE for negligence and negligent misrepresentation after their daughter died from an asthma attack during a voluntary sixth-grade field trip at Camp Fox, a facility owned and operated by SDCOE but attended by students from a different school district. The trial court granted summary judgment to SDCOE, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that Education Code section 35330's field trip immunity, which deems participants to have waived claims against the district for injuries during such trips, applies to SDCOE as the district that conducted and provided the facilities for the trip. The reasoning focused on the statute's text authorizing districts to conduct field trips, its broad construction to encourage educational outings by limiting liability exposure, and the conclusion that limiting immunity only to a student's home district would undermine the law's purposes and create impractical barriers for cooperative use of facilities.

torts & liability

The case involved Angelina Mike, an enrolled member of the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, who received over $385,000 in per capita distributions from her tribe's gaming operations but lived on the reservation of a different tribe. Mike sought a refund of California income taxes withheld on that income, arguing that the McClanahan exemption from state taxation applied because she resided in Indian country. The Franchise Tax Board assessed the taxes, and the trial court ruled in its favor. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the exemption applies only when the tribal member resides on his or her own tribe's reservation, not on lands of another tribe, because the exemption rests on concepts of tribal sovereignty and federal preemption tied to membership in a federally recognized tribe. The court rejected the argument that residence anywhere in Indian country would bar state taxation of reservation-derived income.

taxesfederal power

The case involved a minor, A.G., who was charged in juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 601 and 602 for violating Vehicle Code section 22349 (speeding) and San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102 (curfew ordinance) after being stopped while driving at 1:00 a.m. The juvenile court sustained the allegations, found A.G. subject to its jurisdiction, and placed her on six months' probation. A.G. appealed the curfew true finding, arguing that the ordinance implicitly required proof of a prior warning citation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.5 and that the ordinance violated equal protection under the U.S. and California Constitutions. The court examined the ordinance's text, its defenses and enforcement procedures, and compared it to other curfew laws, addressing whether strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny applied and whether the ordinance was narrowly tailored to protect minors and reduce crime.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Poniktera v. Seiler, a registered voter challenged the San Diego County Registrar of Voters' written policy limiting photography and videotaping at polling places during voting hours, as well as the Registrar's alleged failure to implement adequate measures to secure ballot boxes against tampering or ensure poll workers accounted for all ballots. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief plus a writ of mandate to allow recording devices and enforce stricter ballot security protocols. The trial court denied all relief after adverse evidentiary rulings, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the photography policy aimed to protect ballot secrecy and prevent intimidation under Elections Code provisions without barring non-disruptive recording, and that the Registrar had met its ministerial duties regarding seals and transport without any demonstrated failure to perform specific legal obligations.

electionsfree speech

The case concerned whether a Department of Fish and Game warden could lawfully stop defendant Bouhn Maikhio's vehicle after observing him fishing at night using a hand-line method on a pier during closed lobster season, leading to citations for possessing a spiny lobster out of season and failing to exhibit his catch on demand. Maikhio moved to suppress the evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, and the trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Fish and Game Code sections 1006 and 2012 did not authorize the vehicle stop and that the warden lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under the Fourth Amendment at the time of the stop. The court reasoned that the stop constituted an investigatory detention requiring individualized suspicion, which Fleet explicitly stated he did not have, and that waiting until Maikhio left the pier did not create the necessary basis for the stop.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Vision Manufacturing, Inc. and Steven Truong suing their former attorney Bruce Glasser for legal malpractice related to advice on a commercial lease and addendum for a manufacturing facility. The court granted summary judgment to Glasser, ruling that the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. The reasoning was that plaintiffs discovered the alleged negligence and suffered actual injury by March 2006 when they hired new counsel to challenge the lease addendum in a lawsuit against the landlord, making the September 2007 filing untimely, with no applicable tolling for continuous representation.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In Evans v. Lasco Bathware, Inc., plaintiffs who owned homes with allegedly defective shower pans manufactured by Lasco filed a proposed class action asserting claims for strict products liability and negligence based on water leaks that damaged adjacent building components. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that plaintiffs failed to show that common questions of law or fact predominated over individual issues, particularly with respect to proving each class member's damages and right to recover. The court reasoned that ascertainability and predominance requirements for class actions under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 were not met because individual factual inquiries would be necessary for each potential member.

proceduretorts & liability

In this juvenile dependency case, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency petitioned under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 after the mother’s prior child died while in her care amid allegations of substance abuse and neglect, leading to the detention of her two other children. The juvenile court initially ordered reunification services for the mother following a remand on appeal but later placed the children with their father and ordered family maintenance services for the family at the six-month review hearing. The mother and children appealed, arguing that the mother had not received the court-ordered reunification services and that the court erred in deeming the issue moot. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order for family maintenance services for the father and children but reversed as to the mother, holding that the agency’s failure to provide the previously ordered reunification services required the court to direct implementation of those services rather than converting them to family maintenance. The core reasoning was that once the court exercised its discretion to order reunification services in the children’s best interests, the agency could not disregard the order, and the placement with one parent did not eliminate the need for those services to the other parent.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

In Hylton v. Frank E. Rogozienski, Inc., a client sued his former attorney seeking rescission of a contingency fee contract and damages, alleging the attorney breached fiduciary duties by inducing the client to sign an agreement through misrepresentations about stock ownership risks in an underlying employment dispute and then settling to claim one-third of the shares as a fee. The attorney filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, asserting the claims arose from protected petitioning activity in the prior lawsuit. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the claims were rooted in the attorney's alleged misconduct toward the client rather than protected conduct under the anti-SLAPP statute.

proceduretorts & liability