Douglas Paul Miller

This case involved Force Framing, Inc., a subcontractor on a condominium construction project, suing Chinatrust Bank for a bonded stop notice after the project owner failed to pay for services. The trial court granted summary judgment to Chinatrust, ruling that Force Framing failed to comply with statutory requirements by serving the required 20-day preliminary notice on East West Bank instead of the actual lender, Chinatrust, and that the subcontractor had a duty to verify the lender's identity through county records. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Force Framing had a good faith belief that East West Bank was the lender based on information provided by the owner, allowing service on the reputed lender under the statute.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Berman v. Cate, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate after the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation extended his parole term from three to five years following his guilty plea to lewd acts on a child under 14, seeking to enforce an alleged term of his plea agreement. The trial court granted the petition and directed the Department to release him from parole immediately. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, concluding that a three-year parole term was neither a negotiated term of the plea agreement nor one that could lawfully have been negotiated, and that any misadvisement regarding parole on the plea form did not entitle the petitioner to relief because he failed to allege sufficient prejudice. The court noted that a habeas corpus petition in the sentencing court would have been the appropriate procedural vehicle but addressed the merits anyway.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Nakai, a Riverside County jury convicted defendant of two counts of attempting to send harmful matter to a minor with intent to seduce, based on his online chats and image transmissions to a Perverted Justice volunteer posing as a 12-year-old girl; he was acquitted of attempting a lewd act with a child under 14 and received probation including sex offender registration. Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court should have instructed on the lesser offense of attempting to distribute harmful matter to a minor, should have excluded the chat logs as confidential communications under Penal Code section 632, and that venue was improper because his acts occurred in San Bernardino County. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting each contention after analyzing the jury instructions, the admissibility of the communications, and jurisdictional rules. The opinion addresses the statutory definitions of confidential communications and the application of Proposition 8's evidence rules but finds no reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Sanderson, a jury convicted the defendant of two counts of criminal threats under Penal Code section 422 based on statements made during a telephone call after an altercation at a residence. The trial court denied the defendant's Pitchess motion seeking discovery of the arresting officers' personnel files for alleged dishonesty, finding no good cause shown because the defense merely denied the threats without presenting a plausible alternative factual scenario. The court also denied a section 1118.1 motion for acquittal on one count, determining that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full, holding that the trial court's rulings on both motions were within its discretion and supported by the record.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Murphy, the defendant was convicted by a jury of procuring or offering false information for filing, insurance fraud by false claim, and insurance fraud by false statement after she reported her vehicle as stolen following a single-car accident and submitted an insurance claim. The trial court imposed three years of probation with a 180-day jail term. On appeal, the defendant argued that the felony filing offense was preempted by more specific misdemeanor statutes and that the trial court should have given an additional jury instruction on count 2 requiring a finding that she was not entitled to payment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full, concluding that the more general felony statute was not preempted and that the existing jury instructions sufficiently conveyed the required elements for the false-claim conviction.

criminal law

In People v. Ochoa, the defendant was convicted after jury trials of carjacking, attempted robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, and active participation in a criminal street gang, with gang enhancements under Penal Code section 186.22(b) found true on the carjacking and firearm counts. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the true findings on the gang enhancements, struck the prior prison term enhancements that had never been tried or found true, and ordered an award of custody credits. The court reasoned that the evidence, including the defendant's gang membership and expert testimony on the gang's signature crimes, was insufficient to show that the offenses were committed for the benefit of or with the specific intent to promote the gang.

criminal law

In this case, a citizens group petitioned for a writ of mandate to require Inyo County to prepare an environmental impact report before amending its 2001 general plan to revise the definition of 'net acreage' for determining minimum lot sizes and to set aside approvals of three tentative parcel maps on grounds including noncompliance with zoning and CEQA. The trial court denied the petitions. The Court of Appeal reversed in part, concluding that the general plan amendment required an EIR because it could result in greater development and environmental effects than previously analyzed, and directed the trial court to order the amendment set aside pending EIR preparation if the county wished to proceed; it affirmed the remainder of the judgment because the challengers failed to adequately brief and support their claims regarding the parcel maps' compliance with lot-size rules, public facilities, and environmental impacts.

environmentpropertyprocedure

In Sanchez v. State of California, Val Verde Unified School District and related parties sought a writ of mandate, injunctive, and declaratory relief against the State of California and state agencies over the State Allocation Board's handling of school construction funding under the financial hardship program. The case arose from the Board's decision to count approximately $89 million in proceeds from certificates of participation as available local funds, which resulted in findings that the District had improperly received full state funding for projects and an order to repay over $11 million plus interest while applying the proceeds to future construction. The trial court denied the petition and dismissed the complaint, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the relevant regulations were validly adopted within the Board's authority, the inclusion of the funds was a proper exercise of discretion supported by evidence, and claims regarding constitutionality or procedural errors were either without merit or waived.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Lee v. Valverde, a driver arrested for DUI challenged the administrative suspension of his license after a blood test showed a BAC of 0.20 percent. The superior court granted his petition for writ of mandate, ruling that the forensic laboratory report was inadmissible hearsay because it was dated weeks after the blood sample analysis. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the report qualified for the public records exception to the hearsay rule under Evidence Code section 1280. The court reasoned that the analyst recorded the test results contemporaneously on the day of the analysis, satisfying the requirement that the writing be made at or near the time of the event, and that the document was prepared by a public employee within the scope of duty with sufficient indicia of trustworthiness. The case was remanded with directions to deny the writ petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between a homeowners association and a lot owner in a common interest development over responsibility for maintaining a portion of a concrete drainage channel (V-ditch) on the owner's lot that was located within a designated landscape maintenance area. The association sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the owner was responsible under the CC&Rs for the drainage system on her property, while the owner argued the association bore the duty because it maintained the overlapping landscape area. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owner based on its reading of the CC&Rs. The appellate court reversed, holding that the CC&Rs assigned general responsibility for drainage facilities to individual owners rather than the association, based on the document's language prioritizing drainage maintenance, the circumstances of its creation, and consistent past practice by other owners.

property

The case involved Habitat Trust for Wildlife appealing a trial court judgment denying its petition for a writ of mandate to overturn the City of Rancho Cucamonga's resolution finding that Habitat did not qualify as a conservation entity eligible to receive mitigation land from a residential development project. Habitat and related plaintiff Spirit of the Sage Council also appealed summary judgments rejecting their breach of contract and related claims against the developers for failing to transfer the land to Habitat, as well as a post-judgment attorney fees order. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments and orders in all three consolidated appeals, holding that the city properly applied its criteria under the development agreement and environmental impact report, that no due process violations or evidentiary errors occurred in the city's process, and that no enforceable contract existed to support the breach claims against the developers.

environmentbusiness & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved Annette Sweeney, who faced criminal charges including assault on a peace officer and was found incompetent to stand trial before a petition was filed to commit her under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500 on grounds that she was mentally retarded and dangerous to herself or others. A jury found her to meet the criteria for commitment, resulting in a one-year order to Porterville State Hospital. On appeal, Sweeney challenged the proceedings on due process, equal protection, confrontation, and jury instruction grounds; the court held that the trial court erred by treating the dangerousness criteria as a legal question rather than a factual one for the jury and by giving improper instructions, while rejecting the equal protection and confrontation claims. Although the commitment term had expired and rendered the appeal moot, the court addressed the merits because the issues were of continuing public importance and would otherwise evade review, then dismissed the appeal as moot.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurehealthcare

The case involved first-grade students molested by substitute teacher Eric Norman Olsen, who had previously been banned from other districts for similar conduct that those districts allegedly failed to report under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. The plaintiffs sued San Bernardino City Unified School District and others for negligence and negligence per se, claiming the reporting failures allowed Olsen to continue teaching and harm them. The trial court sustained SBCUSD's demurrer without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed as to the appealed claims. The court held that the Reporting Act imposes no duty on the defendant district toward these plaintiffs and creates no liability for harms occurring later in another district, reasoning that statutory amendments showed no legislative intent to extend such obligations or remedies.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Weston Reid, LLC, as assignee of a hospital's claims under California's Hospital Lien Act (HLA), suing defendant AIG, the first-party insurer of an accident victim. Plaintiff alleged that AIG had paid out uninsured motorist benefits to the insured without notifying plaintiff or honoring a purported HLA lien notice, and asserted claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair business practices. The trial court sustained AIG's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the HLA creates liens only against recoveries from third-party tortfeasors and does not apply to payments under a patient's own first-party insurance policy, rendering the notice to AIG ineffective and all claims without basis. Because the statutory lien did not apply, amendment could not cure the defects.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with assault with a deadly weapon and terrorist threats who was found guilty but not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI), resulting in commitment to a state hospital for over four years until his release in 2002. Nearly six years later, the defendant petitioned under Penal Code section 851.8 to seal and destroy his arrest records, and the trial court granted the petition after finding it a situation the Legislature had not foreseen. On appeal, the court held that the prosecution forfeited its statute of limitations argument by not raising it below, but reversed the order because section 851.8 applies only where the defendant is factually innocent of the charges, which an NGI finding does not establish since there was reasonable cause to arrest and prosecute.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the City of Corona seeking a preliminary injunction to shut down Healing Nations Collective, a medical marijuana dispensary operated by Ronald Naulls, on the grounds that it was operating without valid permits or zoning approval. The trial court granted the injunction, ruling that the dispensary constituted a non-permitted, non-conforming use and thus a nuisance per se under the city's municipal code provisions on business licenses and zoning. On appeal, the court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that Naulls had misrepresented the business on his license application as miscellaneous retail, that medical marijuana dispensaries were not a permitted land use under the city's zoning laws at the time, and that the city could enforce these local requirements via injunctive relief.

business & regulatorycriminal law

Daniel Villanueva, a City of Colton employee in its wastewater division, sued the city under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act alleging race, national origin, and ethnicity discrimination as well as retaliation after he was suspended for mishandling a pump alarm incident and later demoted from lead operator to operator II during a reduction in force triggered by budget shortfalls. The trial court granted the city's motion for summary judgment and awarded it nearly $40,000 in attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the city had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions—namely the documented performance lapse and the neutral application of seniority rules under the applicable memorandum of understanding—and that Villanueva failed to produce evidence of pretext. The court also upheld the fee award, finding it consistent with precedents allowing fees to prevailing defendants when claims lack foundation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerned whether the Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District could enter an option agreement to sell roughly half of a 161-acre property acquired for recreational use to a community college district for a campus, without first obtaining voter consent. A registered voter petitioned for a writ of mandate, arguing that Public Resources Code section 5540 required such approval for any conveyance of property actually dedicated and used for park or open-space purposes. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the petitioner, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that section 5565 automatically vests title in the district and dedicates the property by operation of law for the uses set forth in the article, triggering the voter-consent requirement of section 5540; the district's reliance on Government Code section 25365 was therefore misplaced. The court rejected the district's arguments that the property had not been "actually dedicated" and found no prejudicial error in the summary judgment proceedings.

propertyenvironmentprocedure

The case concerned a lawsuit by the City of Riverside seeking a declaration that a proposed ballot initiative restricting the city's eminent domain powers was invalid and not a proper subject for local initiative. The trial court granted the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, but the appellate court reversed that order. The court reasoned that the city's action targeted the legal validity of the initiative rather than protected speech or petitioning activity, and that pre-election challenges to initiative constitutionality are permissible under California law.

free speechelectionspropertyprocedure

In People v. Mares, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of burglary and one count of possessing a completed check with intent to defraud, based on his use of a car dealership's bank account number to withdraw $5,000 from the bank and his subsequent demands at the dealership for additional funds he claimed were owed to him. On appeal, the defendant raised claims including ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present a mental illness defense or object to instructions, error in the mistake-of-fact instruction requiring a reasonable belief, and whether a bank withdrawal slip qualified as a check under Penal Code section 475. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by instructing that a mistake of fact must be reasonable rather than merely actual to negate specific intent, but found the error harmless given the defendant's planning and sophistication; it rejected the remaining claims and affirmed the judgment while denying the concurrent habeas petition on the merits.

criminal law