Laurence David Rubin

In this case, attorney Ronald Slates sought to recover postjudgment attorney fees from his former clients, Alex Gorabi and Angelino Men’s Wear, Inc., under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 after prevailing in a priority dispute against another creditor, Sam Ghadrdan, who held a larger judgment against the same debtors. The trial court denied the fees, finding they were incurred litigating priority with a third party rather than enforcing the judgment against the debtors themselves, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that section 685.040 allows recovery of fees only for efforts to collect from the judgment debtor, not disputes over asset priority among creditors, and that expanding liability to cover third-party interventions would exceed the statute’s purpose of encouraging debtor cooperation. The appeal proceeded only against the corporate debtor after Gorabi filed for bankruptcy.

procedure

In the case In re Marriage of Starr, the dispute centered on whether a house purchased by the husband in his name only during the marriage was community property or his separate property. The family law court determined that the house was community property after finding that the wife had quitclaimed her interest based on the husband's unfulfilled promise to add her to the title, which violated his fiduciary duties to her under Family Code section 721. The court ordered the husband to convey the property to both parties as tenants in common, allowed reimbursement for his separate property down payment, and denied his request for a refund of child support overpayments. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, upholding the valuation and the application of fiduciary duty rules in interspousal transactions.

family lawproperty

The case involved nursing home operators seeking insurance coverage from the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) for two elder abuse lawsuits after their insurer, Legion Insurance, became insolvent. The court affirmed judgment for CIGA, ruling that the claims were not "covered claims" under the Insurance Code because they were not presented to CIGA by the June 30, 2005 deadline set in the Pennsylvania liquidation proceedings. The core reasoning was that the statutory requirement for timely filing in the domiciliary liquidation is mandatory and applies strictly to CIGA's obligations, regardless of later filings or leniency in other jurisdictions.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case involved a juvenile dependency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), where the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services sought to declare R.R. a dependent child based on allegations of her father Robert B.'s past and current drug use. The father appealed the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition order, challenging the admission of his medical records obtained via subpoena, which showed a recent hospitalization related to methamphetamine use, as well as claiming insufficient evidence and improper limits on visitation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, holding that the father had placed his drug use in issue by denying current abuse and asserting he had been drug-free for six years, thereby forfeiting his physician-patient privilege over the records. The court reasoned that this tender of the issue allowed admission of the evidence at the hearing, and other challenges regarding the subpoena process and evidence sufficiency did not warrant reversal.

family lawprocedure

The case was a proposed class action by a shareholder of JAMDAT Mobile, Inc., a Delaware corporation, alleging that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties during its acquisition by Electronic Arts Inc. for $27 per share, based on claims of an unfair sales process, conflicts of interest involving the CEO's employment guarantees and direct negotiations, inadequate board oversight, and issues with the financial advisor's contingent fee arrangement. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend on grounds including shareholder ratification. The appellate court reversed the judgment as to the individual directors, holding that the complaint stated sufficient facts for a breach of fiduciary duty claim and that Delaware law under Gantler precluded the ratification defense because the merger vote did not qualify as classic ratification, while affirming the ruling as to JAMDAT itself.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved survivors and heirs of victims from a single-vehicle rollover crash in Mexico of a Ford Explorer purchased in California, who sued Ford Motor Company, Cooper Tire, and others in San Diego Superior Court alleging strict and negligent product liability, negligent maintenance, and emotional distress from defective tires and vehicle design. After the case was transferred to Los Angeles and defendants conducted discovery, the trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding Mexico the more convenient forum. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that defendants' delay in filing the motion—after using California discovery processes for eight months on matters unrelated to the motion—prejudiced plaintiffs and barred the dismissal, as forum non conveniens motions must be pursued promptly without availing of the forum's advantages.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

S.M., a minor, sued the Los Angeles Unified School District for negligent supervision after her fourth-grade teacher repeatedly sexually fondled her during the 2002-2003 school year. The trial court granted summary judgment to the district, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that S.M. failed to file a required tort claim within six months of the date her cause of action accrued. The undisputed facts showed her claim accrued no later than June 30, 2003, when the school year ended and she knew the teacher's conduct was wrong, but she did not file until April 2005. The court rejected her argument that accrual was delayed until her mother learned of the abuse in 2004 and also declined to consider an equitable estoppel claim that had not been raised below.

torts & liabilityprocedurecriminal law

In this case, David Lam was convicted of second degree murder after strangling his wife with a necktie amid financial troubles from gambling losses; he initially told police the killing stemmed from shame over theft but later testified it arose from a mutual suicide pact. On appeal, Lam argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a jury instruction on aiding and abetting suicide as a lesser related offense, and that the trial court should have given a voluntary intoxication instruction applicable to implied malice. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that no substantial evidence supported the suicide instruction because Lam actively performed the overt act causing death by pulling the tie, distinguishing the facts from the single-instrumentality exception in In re Joseph G., and that precedent barred extending intoxication instructions to negate implied malice for second degree murder.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Myles S. Carter's appeal from his conviction for second degree robbery after he handed a note demanding money to a fast-food employee and took cash from the registers. Carter argued that the trial court erred by denying his Marsden motions to replace counsel, denying his motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop, and failing to deliver pretrial jury instructions before opening statements. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, concluding that the Marsden motions were properly denied because counsel had not been ineffective, the suppression motion lacked merit, and the absence of the pretrial instructions did not require reversal under the circumstances. The court noted that statutory requirements for such instructions were met or any omission was harmless. The opinion addressed procedural aspects of self-representation requests and continuances but found no reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Russel Bernard's appeal from a trial court judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Oaktree Capital Management and related parties. Bernard had resigned from Oaktree, a real estate investment firm, and later formed a competing fund; the arbitrator found he breached fiduciary duties by diverting investment opportunities and delaying a new Oaktree fund launch, resulting in an award of damages for lost management fees plus attorneys' fees. The trial court confirmed the award, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court held that Bernard's challenge to the award on public policy grounds was untimely in part but, more importantly, that judicial review of the merits of an arbitration award is unavailable absent an explicit agreement allowing such review, which the parties' agreement did not provide. The arbitration clause stated the award was binding and not subject to appeal, triggering the rule limiting court review of arbitration outcomes.

business & regulatoryprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved Wynona Harris, a probationary bus driver for the City of Santa Monica, who sued the city for pregnancy discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act after her termination. Harris had received performance warnings for two preventable accidents and two miss-outs before disclosing her pregnancy, and the city maintained that her discharge was based solely on those documented issues. The trial court entered judgment for Harris following a jury verdict, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the jury instructions failed to properly address the mixed-motive defense by not requiring the jury to determine whether the city would have made the same decision absent any discriminatory motive. The court remanded the matter for retrial with corrected instructions on that defense.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Neftalí Navarrete's conviction for committing a lewd act upon his four-year-old grandniece after an incident in which the child's mother discovered him in a van with the child, both with their shorts pulled down. Pretrial, the court suppressed Navarrete's statement to police for lack of Miranda warnings and barred its use at trial. During testimony, Detective Andrew Serrata willfully referenced the suppressed statement in front of the jury despite the order, prompting the court to strike his testimony and issue a curative instruction. The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and remanded for retrial, holding that the officer's intentional misconduct violated the suppression order and required a new trial because curative measures were insufficient to remedy the prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a marital dissolution between Marc Stem and Daniela Biscaro, in which Stem's default was entered after he did not respond to the petition. Stem, who had cognitive disabilities from brain injuries, requested courtroom accommodations under California Rules of Court rule 1.100 at a hearing on Biscaro's request for a restraining order, but the trial court failed to rule on the request; he did not appear at the subsequent hearing, leading to issuance of the restraining order and later a default judgment that awarded Biscaro a condominium as her separate property even though it had not been identified in her petition. Stem appealed, arguing the lack of accommodation prevented his meaningful participation and that the judgment was improper. The Court of Appeal reversed the restraining order and default judgment, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by not ruling on the accommodation request and that the default judgment improperly exceeded the relief demanded in the petition.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

In People v. Frausto, the defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and two counts of attempted premeditated murder, along with associated firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53(d). He argued that insufficient evidence supported the enhancements on the attempted murder counts because the verdict forms referenced only the death of the murder victim rather than great bodily injury to the other victims. The court rejected this challenge, interpreting the statute to permit the enhancements based on the discharge causing death or injury in the commission of the offenses. However, the court agreed that the trial court had improperly imposed three separate prior conviction enhancements and miscalculated presentence custody credits, ordering corrections to the abstract of judgment while affirming the judgment as amended.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jose Ortiz and Armando Gonzalez, who were convicted by a jury of attempted murder and assault with a semiautomatic firearm after a gang-related shooting incident in Pomona, California, in which the victim was shot in the leg. The trial court imposed sentences including life terms with gang and firearm enhancements under Penal Code sections 186.22 and 12022.53. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions but reversed parts of the sentencing, directing the trial court to strike the 15-year minimum parole eligibility for Ortiz and to reinstate and stay certain firearm enhancements for both defendants. The core reasoning was that the application of the firearm enhancement under the gang-related principal liability provision precluded imposition of the separate gang enhancement's parole minimum, and that other firearm enhancements dismissed at sentencing should have been imposed and stayed instead.

criminal lawguns

In Zermeno v. Precis, Inc., plaintiffs sued a health care discount program provider for unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 after the company failed to provide promised discounts and continued unauthorized charges, seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Before Proposition 64 took effect in 2004, the parties settled all damage and restitution claims for $25,000, leaving only the request for an injunction to proceed in state court. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of standing under the new Proposition 64 requirements, which mandate that plaintiffs show actual injury in fact, applying the rule retroactively as held in Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the new standing rule does not apply to pending cases where plaintiffs had suffered actual injury that was settled before the law’s effective date, allowing them to pursue injunctive relief based on the pre-existing claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission retained jurisdiction over an employee's appeal challenging her suspension without pay and subsequent discharge after she voluntarily retired while the proceedings were pending. The court held that the Commission lost jurisdiction upon retirement and affirmed the trial court's writ directing dismissal of the appeal. Relying on Zuniga v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Com., the opinion reasoned that civil service rules grant the Commission authority only over current members of the civil service, and retirement ends that status, leaving no express power to award backpay or other relief. The court noted that the appeal was not moot but rejected any argument that prior receipt of evidence preserved jurisdiction.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, Marc Stern appealed a temporary restraining order against him and a default judgment in his marital dissolution proceeding with Daniela Biscaro, both of which were entered after the trial court failed to rule on his request for accommodation of his neuropsychiatric disabilities under California Rules of Court, rule 1.100. Stern had requested a courtroom facilitator due to brain injuries affecting his memory and communication, but no ruling was issued, leading to his absence at a hearing where the restraining order was granted based on Biscaro's declarations. The court also entered a default judgment confirming a condominium as Biscaro's separate property, even though her dissolution petition had not identified it as such or sought that relief. The appellate court reversed both the restraining order and the judgment, holding that the failure to address the accommodation request prevented meaningful participation and that the default judgment improperly exceeded the relief requested in the petition, and remanded for further proceedings.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved multiple plaintiffs who alleged they were sexually abused as children by individuals associated with Roman Catholic dioceses in California. The plaintiffs sued after the statutory one-year revival period for previously time-barred claims had expired, claiming they had only recently discovered the connection between the abuse and their adult psychological injuries. The trial court dismissed the cases on demurrer, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the claims had to be filed during the 2003 revival window regardless of when the plaintiffs discovered the causal link to their injuries. The decision followed the court's prior ruling in Hightower v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, interpreting the limitations provisions in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Wynona Harris, a probationary bus driver for the City of Santa Monica, who sued the city for pregnancy discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act after she was terminated shortly after disclosing her pregnancy. The trial court entered judgment in Harris's favor following a jury verdict, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the jury instructions were erroneous because they failed to properly address the mixed-motive defense. The court reasoned that when an employer presents evidence that it would have made the same employment decision for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons even absent any bias, the jury must be instructed that the plaintiff cannot prevail on a discrimination claim unless the protected characteristic was a substantial motivating factor in the decision. The matter was remanded for a new trial with corrected instructions.

labor & employmentcivil rights