Eileen C. Moore

This case involves a dispute among partners in an adult entertainment business where the plaintiff sued his partners and the corporation for accounting irregularities, mismanagement, and breach of fiduciary duties. The defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing it arose from protected activity, but both the trial court and the appellate court denied the motion. The court reasoned that the claims stemmed from a business dispute rather than any protected speech or petitioning activity, with any mention of such activity being incidental. The court also upheld the award of attorney fees against the defendant for filing a frivolous motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant Victor Valdez, who was charged with fleeing the scene of an injury accident under Vehicle Code section 20001 after striking a pedestrian with a car, along with a Penal Code section 12022.7 great bodily injury enhancement. The jury convicted Valdez and found the enhancement true, leading to a sentence that included three years for the enhancement. The court held that the enhancement did not apply because the injuries occurred in the accident itself, not during the commission of the felony of fleeing the scene. The reasoning centered on the fact that section 20001 criminalizes the act of leaving the accident without stopping or rendering aid, rather than the causing of the accident, and the enhancement statute requires personal infliction of great bodily injury in the course of committing or attempting the felony.

criminal law

The case involved buyers who agreed to purchase a residential property for $749,000 but later learned it was encumbered by over $1.1 million in deeds of trust, preventing the seller from conveying clear title without lender concessions or a large cash deposit by the seller. The buyers sued the seller's real estate brokers for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and deceit, alleging the brokers knew of the overencumbrance but failed to disclose it despite listing the property and handling the transaction. The trial court sustained the brokers' demurrer without leave to amend, finding no duty of disclosure. The appellate court reversed, holding that the brokers owed a duty to disclose the substantial risk that clear title could not be conveyed, based on public policy concerns about the reliability of real estate transactions and the potential harm to buyers and the market from undisclosed overencumbered properties.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case is the fourth appeal in a dispute between Donald Roden and AmerisourceBergen over benefits owed to Roden following his 1999 employment termination, focusing on amounts due under the company's supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP) after a change in control. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision to award Roden a larger change-in-control benefit of over $14 million, instead upholding the plan administrator's calculation of about $7.5 million as consistent with actuarial standards. It affirmed the denial of additional payments for unlikely excise taxes, the use of federal rates for prejudgment interest and state rates for postjudgment interest, the accrual of postjudgment interest from the April 2009 order, the application of payments to interest before principal, and the denial of attorney fees, while remanding for modification of the order on the benefit amount.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between tenant Thrifty Payless (Rite Aid) and landlord Mariners Mile Gateway over a commercial lease for a new shopping center development negotiated in 2004-2005. The lease included provisions allowing either party to terminate for any reason if the term had not commenced by June 30, 2008, and required the landlord to pursue entitlements like traffic signal approvals. After the landlord terminated the lease on that date because the project was not completed, Rite Aid sued, but the trial court granted nonsuit to the landlord. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the lease's plain language gave the landlord an absolute termination right regardless of other obligations, and that the landlord could recover expert witness fees under the lease terms without needing to specially plead them at trial.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In G.R. v. Intelligator, the plaintiff husband sued his ex-wife's attorney for filing an unredacted copy of his credit report in post-dissolution proceedings, claiming violations of credit reporting laws and invasion of privacy. The trial court granted the defendant's special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, awarded attorney fees, and denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed these rulings, holding that the attorney's filing constituted protected petitioning activity, the plaintiff failed to show a probability of prevailing on his claims, and there was no abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error regarding the fees and reconsideration motion.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

In People v. Warwick, defendant Ashlee Renee Warwick was convicted of child abuse and neglect under Penal Code section 273a(a) after she secretly gave birth at home, concealed the infant, and failed to provide care, leading to the baby's severe hypothermia, respiratory failure, and other life-threatening conditions requiring medical intervention. The jury also found true an enhancement under section 12022.7(d) that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on the child. On appeal, Warwick challenged the enhancement, arguing that her omissions did not qualify as personally inflicting injury and that the jury instructions were inadequate. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that her failure to care for the newborn constituted personal infliction of great bodily injury under the statute and that no additional jury instruction on the commonly understood term was required.

criminal law

The case involved the family of an 18-year-old woman decapitated in a car accident suing two California Highway Patrol officers and the CHP after the officers emailed graphic photos of the decedent's remains to friends and family members for shock value, causing the images to spread online and resulting in harassment of the family. The trial court sustained demurrers and entered judgments for the defendants on claims including invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that family members hold a common-law privacy right in death images of a decedent and that the officers owed a duty of care under the Rowland factors, particularly foreseeability and moral blame, because the dissemination served no law-enforcement purpose and was not protected press activity.

civil rightstorts & liability

The case involved homeowners Jeffrey and Nanette Turner suing their homeowners association over disputes regarding the approval and height of home improvements like a casita, variances, reimbursement assessments, attorney fees, and compliance with architectural guidelines and CC&Rs under seven causes of action including breach of contract and nuisance. The association filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, arguing the claims arose from protected speech or petitioning activity on matters of public interest related to architectural guidelines. The trial court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the causes of action did not arise from protected free speech or petitioning activities merely because they involved written communications about CC&R enforcement, even if the subject matter concerned a matter of public interest.

free speechpropertyprocedure

This case arose from a wage and hour class action settlement in which Rubio's Restaurants agreed to pay $7.5 million in three installments to class members. After the first payment was distributed, Rubio's discovered it had omitted 140 potential class members from the initial list provided to the settlement administrator. The trial judge initially ordered that the omitted members receive notice and be included in the settlement, but later sua sponte reconsidered, vacated that order, and recused himself. Rubio's appealed the vacating order, arguing the judge lacked authority to act because he simultaneously disqualified himself. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the judge's actions were sequential rather than simultaneous, that he retained authority to reconsider his own ruling before recusing, and that Rubio's had not addressed the applicable standard for reviewing reconsideration orders.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a minor, Ramon M., who had multiple probation violations related to associating with gang members in gang territory after being adjudicated a ward of the court for gang-related offenses. The court addressed whether the minor should serve his commitment in juvenile facilities rather than county jail, the failure to declare prior offenses as felonies or misdemeanors on the record, and challenges to probation terms. The court dismissed the jail placement issue as moot but opined it could recur, found merit in the declaration claim requiring remand, and upheld most probation terms with one modification for clarity. It affirmed the orders but remanded for the limited purpose of making the felony/misdemeanor declarations and modifying a probation condition.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Adams, defendant Guy Sinclair Adams was charged with battery causing serious bodily injury and hit-and-run causing property damage after rear-ending another vehicle on the freeway, fleeing, and then engaging in a physical altercation in which the other driver sustained a concussion and broken nose. A jury convicted him on both counts, and the trial court imposed a 16-year prison sentence after striking one prior strike and one prior serious felony conviction. On appeal, Adams argued that the court gave conflicting jury instructions on self-defense and citizen's arrest, which deprived him of his right to present a defense and due process. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the instructions were not erroneous when considered individually or together and that they properly informed the jury that a person may defend against excessive force during an attempted citizen's arrest if there is a reasonable belief of imminent bodily injury.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Stump, the defendant was charged with two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol with prior felony convictions and admitted to a blood-alcohol content exceeding 0.20 percent; he pleaded guilty and received a four-year prison sentence. He appealed, seeking additional presentence custody credits under Penal Code section 2900.5 for 152 days spent in parole revocation custody plus corresponding conduct credits. The court denied the credits and affirmed the sentence, holding that the parole revocation was based on independent violations—driving without permission and consuming alcohol—rather than solely the conduct underlying the DUI conviction. The opinion applied the "but for" test from People v. Bruner, concluding that the custody was not attributable exclusively to the same conduct for which he was convicted.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved The Termo Company and Angus Petroleum challenging an administrative order by the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, affirmed by the Director of Conservation, to plug and abandon 28 oil wells in Huntington Beach due to lack of production and concerns over public health and safety. The trial court denied their petitions for mandamus using the substantial evidence standard of review. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the right to operate the wells is a fundamental vested right, requiring the trial court to apply the independent judgment standard instead, as the relevant statute did not clearly specify substantial evidence review with adequate due process protections. On remand, the trial court must reconsider under the correct standard and issue a statement of decision if requested.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

In Aguilar v. Aguilar, a husband and wife created a joint living trust in 1992 that became fully irrevocable upon the first spouse's death, with their community property—including their home—transferred into it and no power for the survivor to amend, revoke, or withdraw principal. After the husband died in 1994, the wife executed a new will and later a deed purporting to remove half the home from the joint trust into her individual trust. A remainder beneficiary (the husband's son) petitioned to invalidate the withdrawal and quiet title in the joint trust; the trial court denied the petition, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trust's unambiguous terms bound the surviving spouse and precluded any withdrawal of assets once the trust became irrevocable.

family lawproperty

The case involved a dispute between Satchmed Plaza Owners Association and UWMC Hospital Corporation over Satchmed's right of first refusal under the CC&Rs regarding the sale of 22 fee-owned and 12 leased medical office units in a condominium complex adjacent to a hospital. The trial court ordered UWMC to offer the 22 owned units to Satchmed at a set price and ruled that no such offer was required for the 12 leased units, while finding no prevailing party. Satchmed appealed the leased-units ruling and prevailing-party determination after accepting the offer and purchasing the 22 owned units. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the judgment portions were not severable and that Satchmed had waived its right to appeal by accepting the judgment's benefits.

propertyprocedure

In Gray v. McCormick, neighboring owners of luxury residential lots in a California subdivision disputed the scope of an express easement. The Grays, owners of the dominant tenement (Lot 6), held an exclusive access easement across the McCormicks' servient property (Lot 3) under recorded CC&Rs; the Grays sued to bar the McCormicks from any use of the easement area, while the McCormicks claimed they could use it so long as they did not interfere with the Grays' access. The trial court ruled for the McCormicks, allowing their non-interfering uses, but the Court of Appeal reversed in part. The court held that the easement's clear language granting exclusive use to the Grays precluded any surface use by the McCormicks, though it left open possible subsurface or air rights uses not addressed by the parties. The judgment was modified and affirmed to enjoin the McCormicks from surface use while preserving the injunction against interference with the Grays' rights.

property

This case arose from a dispute between co-owners of Laguna Beach property subject to a long-term below-market lease, where one co-owner (May) and his attorneys contacted the trustee of the other co-owner's interest to seek cooperation in terminating the lease, citing fiduciary duties and potential liability. After the trustee sold its interest to Haneline for a higher price, Haneline sued the Mays for interference with contract and related torts. The trial court granted the Mays' anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, finding the communications protected by the litigation privilege, but the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the communications constituted negotiation and persuasion between co-owners rather than pre-litigation conduct covered by the privilege, and remanded for further proceedings.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In this family law case, Dawn and Paul Mosley, both attorneys, divorced with support orders based on Paul's high earnings of over $447,000 annually as a real estate partner at a law firm, where Dawn was the primary caregiver for their five children. After the real estate market declined, Paul lost his job, took an in-house role with a homebuilder paying a $205,000 base salary plus a discretionary year-end bonus, and sought modification of his spousal and child support obligations due to changed circumstances. The trial court denied the request, finding no sufficient change in circumstances. On appeal, the court held that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion because it improperly relied on uncertain future bonuses that might not materialize, leaving Paul unable to meet his living expenses without borrowing. The matter was reversed and remanded for redetermination of support based on Paul's current base salary and potential imputation of income to Dawn, who is a licensed attorney with nearly grown children.

family law

In Perrin v. Lee, the guardian ad litem for two minor children filed a Probate Code section 21320 safe harbor petition seeking a ruling that a proposed challenge to the second and third amendments of their deceased mother's revocable family trust would not trigger the trust's no-contest clause and cause forfeiture of their interests. The trust originally provided for the children but was amended shortly before the mother's death to make substantial outright gifts to other relatives, reducing the children's share; the no-contest clause broadly addressed challenges to the trust but did not specifically reference amendments, and the amendments themselves contained no such clause. The trial court held that the proposed petition would constitute a contest under the clause, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Probate Code section 21305(a)(3) requires an explicit reference to amendments in the no-contest clause or in the amendments themselves for the clause to apply. The court reasoned that the clause's general language was insufficient and that the statutory requirement could not be satisfied by incorporation or broad interpretation.

propertyprocedurefamily law