Frances Rothschild

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

free speechprocedure

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

criminal lawprocedureguns

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.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

procedure

In this case, plaintiffs obtained health coverage from Blue Shield in 2004 through an insurance broker who completed their application, but Blue Shield rescinded the policy in 2006 after discovering alleged material misrepresentations about medical history, including infertility treatments. Plaintiffs sued, and the trial court granted summary judgment to Blue Shield. The appellate court reversed, holding that Blue Shield failed to meet its burden to show no triable issues of fact on whether any misrepresentations were willful under Health and Safety Code section 1389.3 and on causation, particularly given the broker's role in filling out the form without plaintiffs reviewing it. The decision also addressed related claims but upheld summary adjudication on bad faith and punitive damages due to lack of evidence of improper delay.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a lawsuit by the Los Angeles City Attorney against health insurer Blue Cross, its affiliate, and parent company alleging violations of California's unfair competition law and false advertising law based on postclaims underwriting practices, including rescinding individual and family health coverage after investigating claims for discrepancies in applications without prior medical underwriting. The defendants demurred, arguing that the Department of Managed Health Care's exclusive regulatory and enforcement authority under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act preempted the city attorney's claims, and the trial court overruled the demurrer. In this writ proceeding, the Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that the Knox-Keene Act does not strip the city attorney of authority to pursue UCL and FAL claims, as those remedies are cumulative and no statute makes the DMHC's authority exclusive even when it has investigated and settled related matters. The court rejected abstention arguments and distinguished prior cases, emphasizing that the city attorney's claims against both the managed care plan and the insurance company could proceed.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved a dispute over priority to certain deposit accounts of defendant National Mobile Television after plaintiff Full Throttle Films obtained a writ of attachment and levied on the accounts to collect an unpaid debt. Third-party claimant Wachovia Capital Finance sought release of the levied funds, asserting a superior security interest based on loan agreements, control agreements, and UCC financing statements. The trial court granted the release and quashed the levy. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Wachovia Capital had not met its burden to show that its security interest was perfected by control or that a proper financing statement had been filed before Full Throttle became a lien creditor, as required by the California Uniform Commercial Code.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

In People v. Gutierrez, Hugo Gutierrez appealed his convictions for multiple counts of kidnapping and forcible sex crimes arising from attacks on victims including E.R. in a secluded park area, where he used a gun to rob and sexually assault her after moving her down a hillside. Gutierrez argued that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of his lack of a criminal record to challenge identifications, that his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were violated by admitting DNA and sexual assault reports through supervising experts who did not perform the original tests, and that the victims' movement was insufficient to support aggravated kidnapping under Penal Code section 209(b). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that any evidentiary error was not prejudicial, that the expert testimony satisfied confrontation requirements because it involved contemporaneous recordation of observable events under Geier, and that the asportation increased the risk of harm beyond that incidental to the underlying offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned an incarcerated father who petitioned for a writ after the juvenile court terminated his reunification services with his daughter at a six-month review hearing and set a permanency planning hearing. The father argued that the court wrongly believed it lacked discretion to extend services and that the Department of Children and Family Services had not provided reasonable reunification opportunities while he was in custody. The appellate court granted the writ and directed the juvenile court to vacate its orders and hold a new hearing to exercise discretion on whether to continue services. The core reasoning was that statutory amendments allow courts to consider an incarcerated parent's limited access to programs and contact with the child, and that factors such as the child's safe placement with grandparents and the father's expected release supported reconsidering continuation of services.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a juvenile, R.O., who was found by the court to have committed first-degree murder with personal use of a firearm in a gang-related shooting. The juvenile court committed R.O. to the Division of Juvenile Facilities and imposed a maximum confinement term of 35 years to life, believing it had no discretion to set a lower term than the mandatory adult sentence for the same offense. On appeal, R.O. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the court's failure to exercise discretion in setting the confinement period. The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was sufficient and affirmed the commitment but concluded that Welfare and Institutions Code section 731(c) gives the juvenile court discretion to set a maximum term based on the facts and circumstances of the case, provided it does not exceed the adult maximum. The court therefore remanded the matter for the juvenile court to exercise that discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by TRE Holdings, LLC and its principal from a judgment enforcing a stipulated settlement in a prior quiet title action concerning liens on real property in Los Angeles. The settlement agreement, reached orally before the court in the Cahuenga action, included releases of claims and explicit provisions acknowledging WMC Mortgage's first and second deeds of trust as senior priority liens superior to any interests held by TRE. After TRE obtained a later judgment in a separate action purporting to create a superior lien, WMC moved to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the settlement validly bound TRE and Fowlkes because their consent was given orally before the court, including through counsel and in chambers, and the agreement expressly preserved WMC's senior security interests.

procedureproperty

This case concerned a juvenile dependency petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services alleging that 13-year-old R.M. and his 10-year-old sister S.M. were at substantial risk of serious physical harm due to their parents' inadequate supervision and the mother's physical and emotional problems. The juvenile court sustained the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), based on evidence of the children's inappropriate sexual conduct and the parents' divergent parenting approaches, then removed the children from their mother's custody and placed them in foster care. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the orders as to the mother, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support jurisdiction because there was no showing that the mother had failed to supervise the children or that her issues created a current risk of harm. The court noted that the mother had taken prompt steps to stop the conduct once she learned of it, that no further incidents occurred afterward, and that expert reports indicated she was capable of protecting her children.

family law

The case involved Robert Dahms challenging the City of Pomona's formation of a Property and Business Improvement District (PBID) that levied special assessments on properties in downtown Pomona to fund services like security, maintenance, and marketing. Dahms argued that the assessments violated article XIII D of the California Constitution by not being proportional to the special benefits received by each property. The Court of Appeals, applying de novo review as directed by the Supreme Court, affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the assessment methodology—based on street frontage, building size, and lot size—properly ensured that assessments did not exceed the reasonable cost of proportional special benefits conferred on each parcel. The court also upheld the reduced assessments for nonprofit properties and exemptions for exclusively residential properties as compliant with constitutional requirements.

business & regulatorytaxesproperty

The case involved homeowners who filed a claim under their all-risk dwelling policy after discovering extensive water damage and mold caused by corrosion around a nail that a contractor had driven through a pipe years earlier during remodeling. State Farm denied the claim based on policy exclusions for corrosion, continuous water seepage from a plumbing system, and third-party negligence interacting with excluded perils, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment on stipulated facts. The trial court granted judgment for the insurer, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that the policy exclusions applied regardless of whether contractor negligence was the efficient proximate cause and that the mold endorsement did not provide coverage because the damage stemmed from excluded perils.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a juvenile dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b) alleging that 13-year-old R.M. and his 10-year-old sister S.M. had suffered or were at risk of serious physical harm due to their parents' inadequate supervision, including incidents of inappropriate sexual conduct between the siblings and the mother's physical and emotional problems. The juvenile court sustained the petition, found the children to be dependents, and removed them from their mother's custody, placing them in separate foster homes. On appeal, the court reversed the orders as to the mother, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support jurisdiction because there was no showing that the mother had failed to adequately supervise the children or that her alleged problems rendered her unable to provide care. The record indicated that the mother had taken protective steps once she learned of the conduct, such as admonishing the children and locking doors, and that no further incidents occurred afterward. The court further found no connection between the parents' custody disputes or the mother's condition and any ongoing risk of serious physical harm to the children.

family law

The case involved former employees of Axxis Network & Telecommunications, Inc. who sued the company and its surety for failing to pay statutory prevailing wages and related benefits for work on Los Angeles Unified School District public works projects, in violation of Labor Code sections 1770 et seq. Axxis petitioned to compel arbitration under the grievance procedures in a project stabilization agreement between the LAUSD and trade unions to which Axxis had agreed to be bound. The trial court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the agreement did not contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of the employees' right to a judicial forum for their statutory claims and that it expressly carved out an exception for alleged violations of prevailing wage laws.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a law firm that sued a former client for unpaid fees, obtained a default judgment, and then twice secured additional awards of attorney fees for collection efforts without providing the required notice to the defendant, causing the judgment to grow substantially. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to set aside the most recent fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and equitable powers. The appellate court reversed, directing vacation of the fee award because the absence of notice violated statutory notice rules, and further held that the underlying default judgment itself was void on the face of the record due to defects in the proof of service.

procedure

In People v. Martinez, two defendants were convicted of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder arising from a gang-related shooting outside a restaurant in which a third person fired the shots. The trial court instructed the jury that it could convict the defendants on an aiding-and-abetting theory if it found they had aided a breach of the peace or misdemeanor assault and that the murders were a natural and probable consequence of those lesser offenses. The Court of Appeal held that the record contained no substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the shootings were a natural and probable consequence of the targeted minor crimes, making the instruction erroneous. Because the error was prejudicial, the court reversed the convictions. The opinion focuses on the sufficiency of evidence for the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine in aiding-and-abetting liability.

criminal law