Stuart Robert Pollak

E-Pass Technologies sued its former attorneys for legal malpractice after they represented the company in unsuccessful federal patent infringement lawsuits involving U.S. Patent No. 5,276,311 for an electronic multi-function card. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the action raised substantial issues of federal patent law and thus fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the state court has jurisdiction because E-Pass's malpractice allegations, as limited in its briefing and argument, do not require resolution of a substantial question of patent law. The court noted that the claim centers on the attorneys' conduct in the underlying litigation rather than a direct challenge to patent claim construction or infringement findings.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a juvenile wardship proceeding against E.R. for his role in a gang-related shooting that killed one youth and wounded another, where the court found true allegations of conspiracy to commit murder, first-degree murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, personal firearm use, and gang enhancements, leading to a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice. On appeal, E.R. challenged the juvenile court's decision to change its initial finding of second-degree murder to first-degree murder after the prosecutor argued that the conspiracy finding required it under People v. Cortez, along with other claims about the firearm finding, sufficiency of evidence, and the disposition. The Court of Appeal held that the change was improper because Cortez does not compel a first-degree finding as a matter of law when a murder occurs during a conspiracy, and inconsistent verdicts are permitted to stand. It therefore ordered the murder finding corrected back to second degree and adjustments to the disposition, while affirming the remaining jurisdiction findings and order in other respects.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James Parris Powell's petition challenging the Board of Parole Hearings' 2009 determination that he remained unsuitable for parole due to posing a current risk of danger to society. Powell had been convicted in 1982 of two counts of second-degree murder and sentenced to 16 years to life. The court reversed the Board's decision and remanded the matter for a new parole-suitability hearing. The core reasoning was that the denial was not supported by some evidence of present dangerousness, considering Powell's prison record, completion of self-help and substance abuse programs, and positive psychological evaluations over the years.

criminal law

The case concerned whether the Gualala Festivals Committee required a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission to launch fireworks over the Gualala River estuary as part of its annual Patriot Days event. The Commission issued a cease-and-desist order after determining that the displays constituted a development under the California Coastal Act due to potential adverse effects on nearby seabird nesting sites and marine habitats, as documented in monitoring reports showing nest abandonments following a 2007 display. The trial court denied the Festivals Committee's petition for a writ of mandate, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court held that the Act's expansive definition of development encompasses the discharge of materials into coastal areas, consistent with the statute's goal of protecting ecological resources, even if the activity is temporary.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether Governor Schwarzenegger's 2008 executive order imposing two-day-per-month furloughs on state employees could apply to employees of the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). The Court of Appeal affirmed the San Francisco Superior Court's writ of mandate barring the furloughs for SCIF employees. The court rejected the Governor's claim that the action should have been stayed under exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, noting that the Sacramento proceedings did not address SCIF employees or the specific statutory issue raised here. It held that Insurance Code section 11873 exempts SCIF from the general provisions of the Government Code that might otherwise authorize the Governor to order furloughs, because SCIF operates as a public enterprise fund supported by premiums rather than General Fund appropriations.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In People v. Duong, the San Francisco district attorney appealed a trial court order setting restitution after the defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing great bodily injury; the victim received treatment at a Kaiser facility as a plan member without incurring out-of-pocket costs beyond the monthly premium. The trial court limited restitution to $1,900 for ambulance services and excluded the $4,459 in hospital charges, reasoning that the victim had not personally incurred those expenses and that Kaiser was not a direct victim entitled to restitution. The Court of Appeal held that Penal Code section 1202.4 requires restitution for the victim's economic loss measured by the amount the provider will accept as full payment—in this case the $1,538.20 lien amount after the 20 percent reduction—rather than the full billed charges, because any higher sum would exceed the actual loss incurred. The court therefore vacated the restitution order and remanded for entry of a new order including that amount.

criminal lawprocedure

In Joseph v. Johnson, plaintiffs sued defendant Carolyn Johnson for personal injuries stemming from sexual molestation by her husband Albert Caesar when the plaintiffs were minors, alleging that Johnson had knowledge of his propensities and either negligently delegated babysitting duties to him or intentionally made the plaintiffs available for abuse. The trial court sustained Johnson's demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend, finding all claims barred by the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the negligence causes of action but reversed as to the intentional misconduct claims, holding that the statute's extended limitations period for intentional acts by a non-perpetrator defendant in a position to control the abuser applied to those allegations, while the negligence claims did not qualify for the extension. The decision turned on statutory interpretation of section 340.1's provisions distinguishing between negligent and intentional conduct by third parties and the timing of the plaintiffs' discovery of their injuries.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved California’s Department of Parks and Recreation appealing a preliminary injunction that required it to reissue a permit allowing vehicle access to Gold Bluffs Beach in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park for commercial surf fishing after the permit had been revoked. The plaintiff sought a writ of mandate to compel reissuance, and the trial court rejected arguments that the National Park Service was a necessary and indispensable party due to the cooperative management of Redwood National and State Parks. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, holding that despite a memorandum of understanding and joint management plan with the National Park Service, the Department retains authority to issue permits for areas under state jurisdiction and the federal agency is not indispensable to the proceedings.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between trustee Glenn Lerner and contingent remainder beneficiaries Carin Salter and Jennifer Segal over whether a proposed petition seeking information about the administration of a family trust would violate the trust's no contest clause. The probate court ruled that the petition would not violate the clause, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The core reasoning was that the petition sought only to enforce the trustee's nonwaivable fiduciary duty under Probate Code section 16060 to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed, rather than to challenge the validity of the trust or its terms, and that barring such a petition would conflict with public policy reflected in Probate Code section 21305. The court distinguished this duty from waivable reporting and accounting obligations under sections 16061 and 16062.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether a subpoena duces tecum compelling a nonparty witness to testify and produce documents at a deposition was valid without an accompanying affidavit or declaration showing good cause. The trial court imposed monetary sanctions on the witness for failing to appear, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.510, part of the Civil Discovery Act, governs such deposition subpoenas and expressly dispenses with the good-cause affidavit requirement, superseding the conflicting provision in section 1987.5.

procedure

The case concerned the City and County of San Francisco's attempt to initiate landmark designation for a former United Methodist church property that the church had transferred, vacated due to disrepair, and contracted to sell for demolition and condominium development. The superior court issued a writ of mandate directing the city to set aside its board resolution, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Government Code sections 25373 and 37361 exempt noncommercial property owned by religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations from local landmarking when the owner objects and determines it would suffer substantial hardship. The court reasoned that the property qualified as noncommercial because its use related to the church's religious mission rather than profitmaking, that the statutory exemption applied despite the planned sale, and that the challenge was not premature even though no final landmark designation had occurred. The decision rejected the city's arguments that the exemption was limited to currently used worship sites or that judicial review required a completed administrative process.

religious libertypropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether part-time certificated school psychologists with greater seniority could use Education Code section 44955 to bump a full-time psychologist with lesser seniority during a reduction in services by the St. Helena Unified School District. The district had eliminated one full-time equivalent psychologist position and retained the full-time employee while releasing the two part-time employees. The administrative law judge, district board, and trial court all rejected the bumping claim, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the statute's seniority and competence rules do not require a district to split a full-time position to accommodate part-time employees who seek to render only a portion of the service, and that precedent confirms part-time employees lack bumping rights over full-time positions in this context.

labor & employment

The case involved a juvenile ward, R.V., who was placed on probation following admissions to vandalism with a gang enhancement and receiving stolen property, along with later probation violations involving gang associations, alcohol use, and school issues. R.V. appealed a disposition order imposing a GPS monitoring condition, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection. Although the appeal was moot by the time of decision, the court addressed the merits and affirmed the order. The court reasoned that the condition was a reasonable, individualized response to the minor's history of misconduct and violations, allowing effective monitoring as a less restrictive alternative to out-of-home placement, without denying equal protection since courts may tailor conditions to specific circumstances.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved homeowners Mehmet and Aynar Gundogdu suing builder King Mai, Inc. for negligence and breach of implied warranty over construction defects in a home completed in 1995 and purchased by the plaintiffs in 1997. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the action was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, which begins to run from the date of substantial completion (marked by the notice of completion) rather than discovery of defects or subsequent repair attempts. The court reasoned that the statute imposes an absolute cutoff for latent defects regardless of when they are found, with no equitable tolling for repair promises, and that the facts did not support equitable estoppel because the defendant refused further repairs before the limitations period expired and the plaintiffs did not file suit until after it had run. The complaint was filed in April 2006, more than 10 years after the 1995 notice of completion.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case is a class action lawsuit brought by employees against Foot Locker Retail, Inc., alleging violations of California labor laws, including failure to reimburse for required work uniforms, unpaid wages for security checks, and denial of meal and rest periods. The trial court approved a settlement agreement reached through mediation, but objectors appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the fairness of the terms. The appellate court vacated the approval and remanded the matter, holding that a trial court must evaluate the amount in controversy and the realistic range of litigation outcomes to determine if a class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, even if negotiations were arm's-length. Although the record did not show such valuation data was provided to the trial court, the decision emphasized that the court bears ultimate responsibility for this assessment without requiring resolution of the claims' merits.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether the San Francisco Board of Supervisors had jurisdiction under the city charter to disapprove a five-year hauling contract conditionally awarded by the Public Utilities Commission to SN Sands Corp. (S&S) after a competitive bid. The charter requires board approval for contracts with anticipated expenditures of $10 million or more. The court held that the board lacked jurisdiction because the only evidence before it showed projected costs of about $8.32 million, and later evidence submitted by the city also failed to demonstrate that expenditures would reach the threshold. The anticipated cost must be based on probable expenditures supported by evidence rather than speculation about variables such as fuel prices or mileage changes. The court therefore affirmed the trial court order directing the city to award the contract to S&S.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity against private owners and operators of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, alleging that the turbines' killing of raptors and other birds violated the public trust doctrine protecting wildlife. The trial court dismissed the action on the ground that private parties lack authority to bring claims for public trust violations arising from destruction of wild animals. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that while private parties may generally enforce the public trust in wildlife resources, the proper avenue here is to petition for writ relief against the public agencies already regulating the wind farms through permitting and mitigation measures. The court reasoned that allowing the suit to proceed against the operators would force courts to make complex resource-balancing decisions without agency expertise and risk inconsistent outcomes with ongoing administrative actions.

environmentprocedure

In People v. O'Neil, the defendant pled guilty to possession of illegal narcotics for sale and was placed on probation with a condition prohibiting association with any person designated by the probation officer. The defendant challenged this condition as unreasonable, overbroad, and violative of his constitutional rights to association and due process. The court held that while probation conditions may restrict association rights if tailored to rehabilitation and public safety, the condition here was too broad because it granted the probation officer unfettered discretion without any standards or limitations on the class of persons. The court remanded the case for the trial court to either strike the condition or revise it with necessary specificity to comply with constitutional requirements.

criminal lawfree speech

The case involved Paul George, an adjudicated sexually violent predator (SVP) under California's SVPA, whose prior two-year commitment was expiring as authorities sought to place him in a supervised community release program but faced extreme geographic restrictions preventing placement in San Francisco. After the district attorney filed a petition to recommit him indefinitely, a dispute arose over the required proof at trial: whether the state must show George needed continued locked-facility confinement or merely that public safety required at least supervised outpatient placement. The trial court dismissed the petition after the district attorney conceded insufficient evidence for locked confinement, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that recommitment is proper if the evidence shows a need for either form of custody and remanding for trial under that standard. The core reasoning centered on the SVPA's definitions and procedures for SVP status and conditional release, which allow commitment based on the necessity of supervised placement even when unconditional release is not appropriate.

criminal law

The case involved a homeowner who sued multiple defendants, including Rodan Termite Control, for defects discovered in a newly purchased home after a termite inspection. The plaintiff rejected Rodan's pretrial offer to settle for $5,000 under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, later settled with other defendants for $34,000, and obtained a $15,600 verdict at trial against Rodan that was offset to zero under section 877. The dispute concerned whether the zero judgment meant the plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable result than the rejected offer, triggering cost-shifting under section 998. The court decided that whether the plaintiff obtained a more favorable outcome is determined by accounting for other settlements reached while the section 998 offer was outstanding, and it affirmed the trial court's award of costs to the plaintiff on that basis.

procedurepropertytorts & liability