The case concerned whether Medici Code, the winner of the 2007 Del Mar Derby, should be disqualified and its purse redistributed because prior positive drug tests for Clenbuterol rendered the horse ineligible to enter the race based on qualifying finishes and earnings. Glen Hill Farm, owner of the second-place horse, sought a writ of mandate to compel the California Horse Racing Board to either redistribute the purse or hold a hearing to determine eligibility and purse rights after the stewards disqualified the horse from earlier races but took no action on the Derby. The trial court granted the petition and ordered the Board to exercise discretion on redistribution. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Glen Hill was required to file a protest with the stewards under Board rules before seeking Board action, that no such protest was made, and that the Board had no duty to initiate proceedings or redistribute the purse absent compliance with those procedures.
In Moore v. Kaufman, Frances L. Diaz petitioned for relief from a contempt finding after she refused to answer questions at a judgment debtor examination related to an attorney fee award. The underlying judgment, entered after an anti-SLAPP motion to strike was granted, imposed attorney fees jointly and severally against Diaz (plaintiff's counsel) and her client Moore. The court held that the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) does not authorize awards of attorney fees against a plaintiff's counsel, rendering the judgment void as to Diaz. It therefore granted the petition, directed vacation of the contempt order, and ordered amendment of the judgment to hold only Moore liable. The decision rested on the absence of statutory authority for the fee award against counsel and procedural deficiencies in how the award was sought and entered.
In Mito v. Temple Recycling Center Corp., plaintiffs filed a personal injury complaint arising from a 2006 motor vehicle collision, seeking damages from defendants, but the superior court clerk rejected the July 24, 2008, fax filing for lacking a local cover sheet addendum required by Los Angeles Superior Court rules, leading to a refiling after the two-year statute of limitations had expired and subsequent dismissal with prejudice. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer on timeliness grounds and denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the filing date nunc pro tunc. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that California Rules of Court, rule 3.220(c) mandates that the clerk must file the complaint despite any missing or defective cover sheet under local rules, as long as state filing requirements are met, and directed the trial court to treat the complaint as filed on the original date. The reasoning emphasized that local rules cannot condition the initial filing of a complaint and that the state rule was adopted specifically to prevent such rejections.
In People v. Beckley, defendants Albert Jerome Beckley, Jr., and Darrell Amont Finn were convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted premeditated murder, with true findings on gang-benefit enhancements under Penal Code section 186.22(b) and firearm-use enhancements under section 12022.53. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in admitting a photograph and a "gang roster" downloaded from Internet websites without proper authentication, but found the errors harmless. The court further concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the street gang enhancements and modified the judgments by striking those enhancements for both defendants; it also struck certain gun-use enhancements as to Finn and remanded for resentencing, while affirming the judgments in all other respects. The core reasoning focused on the lack of foundation for the web-downloaded documents under Evidence Code standards of authenticity and relevance, the absence of proof linking the roster to the defendants' gang membership, and the cumulative nature of other admissible evidence of gang affiliation.
The case involved L.A. Checker Cab Cooperative seeking coverage from its insurer, First Specialty Insurance Corporation, for a lawsuit arising from an incident where a cab driver employee shot a passenger during a confrontation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding no coverage, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that the shooting was an intentional act, not an "accident" under the policy's bodily injury coverage, regardless of whether it was in self-defense or resulted from negligent supervision, following precedent that such intentional acts do not qualify as occurrences.
This case involved consolidated appeals by Joseph Shalant, a declared vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 that barred him from filing new litigation in propria persona without court approval. Shalant initially filed a complaint against Thomas Girardi and others through counsel, later substituting in to represent himself, after which the trial court dismissed the action for violating the order; in a related action, a jury had entered judgment against Shalant on claims by Jose Castro. The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal, reasoning that the prefiling order applies only to the initiation of new litigation and not to subsequent pro per appearances in a properly filed case. It also reversed the judgment against Shalant on Castro's breach of fiduciary duty claim due to lack of substantial evidence but affirmed the remainder of the judgment.