Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group of non-convicted individuals detained at the Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, California, filed a lawsuit against the county and a private contractor, Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. The detainees were working in the jail's kitchen, preparing meals for the jail population and staff under an agreement between the county and Aramark. They were not paid for their labor. The detainees sued for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime.The case was initially heard in a federal district court, which granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court reasoned that while the Penal Code addresses employment and wages of state prisoners, it does not address such matters for pretrial detainees confined in county jails. The court also agreed with the County that government entities are exempt from state overtime laws and therefore granted the County's motion to dismiss the claim for overtime wages. The district court certified for interlocutory appeal the legal question of pretrial detainees’ entitlement to minimum and overtime wages.The Supreme Court of California was asked by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether non-convicted incarcerated individuals working in a county jail for a private company have a claim for minimum wage and overtime under California law. The Supreme Court of California concluded that non-convicted incarcerated individuals performing services in county jails for a for-profit company do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under Section 1194 of the California Labor Code, even in the absence of a local ordinance prescribing or prohibiting the payment of wages for these individuals. View "Ruelas v. County of Alameda" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of California was asked to interpret a witness dissuasion statute, Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (b)(2), in a case involving defendant Raymond Gregory Reynoza. Reynoza was found guilty of violating this statute based on actions that occurred after the complaint in the underlying criminal case had been filed. The court had to determine whether the statute applies where a defendant dissuades a witness from “assisting in the prosecution” of a case after the charging document has already been filed, or whether a conjunctive interpretation precludes a conviction under such circumstances.The lower courts had disagreed on the interpretation of the statute. The Court of Appeal held that section 136.1(b)(2) requires proof that the defendant attempted to prevent or dissuade another person from causing an accusatory pleading to be filed. If the defendant was aware the relevant charging document had already been filed, and the defendant did not attempt to prevent or dissuade the filing of any amended or subsequent charging document, the defendant has not violated section 136.1(b)(2).The Supreme Court of California found that the statute is equally susceptible to both the conjunctive and disjunctive constructions. Therefore, the rule of lenity counsels in favor of adopting the “interpretation more favorable to the defendant.” Here, that is the conjunctive construction, which does not permit a conviction to be based solely on proof of dissuasion from “assisting in the prosecution” of an already-filed charging document. Because there is no dispute that Reynoza’s conduct amounted to, at most, dissuasion after a complaint was filed, the court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal reversing his conviction. View "P. v. Reynoza" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of California considered whether a health care agent, who had signed two contracts with a skilled nursing facility on behalf of a principal, had the authority to sign an optional, separate arbitration agreement. The first contract ensured the principal’s admission to the facility, while the second made arbitration the exclusive method for resolving disputes with the facility. The court concluded that the execution of the arbitration contract was not a "health care decision" within the authority of the health care agent. Therefore, the facility’s owners and operators could not rely on the agent’s execution of the arbitration agreement to compel arbitration of claims arising from the principal’s alleged maltreatment. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

This case involves a wage dispute between an employee and his employer. The employee, George Huerta, filed a class action against his employer, CSI Electrical Contractors, seeking payment for unpaid hours worked. The case revolved around the interpretation of the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Order No. 16 and the term "hours worked."The Supreme Court of California was asked by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to answer three questions related to Wage Order No. 16. The first question was whether time spent waiting to exit a security gate on the employer's premises was compensable as "hours worked". The court concluded that it was, as the employer's mandated exit procedure, including vehicle inspection, signified a level of control over the employee.The second question was whether time spent driving between the security gate and employee parking lots while subject to employer-imposed rules was compensable. The court held that it could be compensable as "employer-mandated travel" if the security gate was the first location where the employee's presence was required for an employment-related reason other than accessing the worksite. However, this travel time was not considered "hours worked" as the employer's rules did not imply a requisite level of control.Lastly, the court was asked whether time spent on the employer's premises during an unpaid meal period, when workers were prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, was compensable as "hours worked". The court held that it was, as the employer's prohibition on leaving the premises prevented the employee from engaging in personal activities. The employee could bring an action to enforce the wage order and recover unpaid wages for that time. View "Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors" on Justia Law

In California, the People v. Hardin case involves the defendant, Tony Hardin, who is serving a life sentence without parole for a special circumstance murder he committed at age 25. Hardin challenged the constitutionality of a California statute that provides parole hearings for most young adult offenders but excludes those serving life sentences without parole for crimes committed after turning 18.The Supreme Court of California found that the legislature acted rationally in distinguishing between young adults serving life sentences without parole and those serving parole-eligible sentences for crimes committed when they were young. The court reasoned that the legislature's decision to exclude certain offenders from parole hearings reflected a balance of multiple considerations, including the seriousness of the offender's crimes and the capacity of all young adults for growth.The court stated that while the primary purpose of the statute was to provide opportunities for early release to certain young adults, the legislature also considered other factors. It could rationally balance the seriousness of the offender's crimes against the capacity of all young adults for growth, and determine that young adults who have committed certain very serious crimes should remain ineligible for release from prison.The court also noted that it is the legislature's prerogative and duty to define degrees of culpability and punishment and to distinguish between crimes. Therefore, Hardin's argument that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by irrationally discriminating against young adult offenders sentenced to life without parole was dismissed, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed. View "P. v. Hardin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of California, in a case involving a dispute over California's lemon law, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Lisa Niedermeier. Niedermeier had purchased a new Jeep Wrangler from FCA US LLC, which was defective. Despite numerous attempts to repair the vehicle, the issues persisted. Niedermeier requested FCA buy back the vehicle, but FCA declined. Eventually, she traded in the defective vehicle for a new one, receiving a trade-in credit.Niedermeier later sued FCA for breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. A jury found in her favor and awarded her a significant sum. FCA appealed, arguing the award should be reduced by the trade-in amount. The Court of Appeal agreed with FCA, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.The Supreme Court held that in an action under the Song-Beverly Act, neither a trade-in credit nor sale proceeds reduce the statutory restitution remedy. The court reasoned that the Act's plain language does not permit such a reduction. Additionally, the court found that this interpretation is supported by the legislative history and consumer-protective purpose of the Act. The court further noted that allowing such a reduction would incentivize manufacturers to delay compliance with the Act.The court concluded that the statutory restitution remedy should not be reduced by a trade-in credit or sale proceeds, at least in cases where a consumer is forced to trade in or sell a defective vehicle due to the manufacturer's failure to comply with the Act. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. View "Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of California held that a trial court has discretion to grant or deny relief from a jury trial waiver under section 631(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court is not required to grant relief just because proceeding with a jury would not cause hardship to other parties or the court. The court should consider various factors, including the timeliness of the request and the reasons supporting the request. The court further held that a litigant who challenges the denial of relief from a jury waiver for the first time on appeal must show actual prejudice to obtain reversal.The case involved TriCoast Builders, Inc. and Nathaniel Fonnegra. Fonnegra hired TriCoast to repair his house after a fire, but he was unhappy with the quality of the work and terminated the contract. TriCoast sued Fonnegra for damages. Fonnegra initially demanded a jury trial, but waived this right on the day of the trial. TriCoast, which had not demanded a jury trial or paid the jury fee, requested a jury trial after Fonnegra’s waiver. The trial court denied their request and a bench trial was held. TriCoast appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in denying their request for a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluding that TriCoast had not established the prejudice necessary to justify reversing the trial court's judgment. View "TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of California was asked to interpret the "collective engagement" requirement under the California Penal Code section 186.22(f) and its application to the proof of predicate offenses. This requirement was introduced through Assembly Bill 333, which amended gang sentencing provisions. The defendant, Kejuan Darcell Clark, a member of the Northside Parkland street gang, was charged with several offenses related to a home invasion and assault. The prosecution sought to apply gang enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b).The court held that the term "collective engagement" in section 186.22(f) does not require that each predicate offense must have been committed by at least two gang members acting in concert. Rather, the court interpreted the term to require a showing that links the two predicate offenses to the gang as an organized, collective enterprise. This can be demonstrated by evidence linking the predicate offenses to the gang's organizational structure, its primary activities, or its common goals and principles.The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal as to Clark's gang enhancement and remanded the case for further proceedings to apply this interpretation of the collective engagement requirement. View "P. v. Clark" on Justia Law

In this case before the Supreme Court of California, the court interprets the provisions regarding the modification of a revocable trust under California Probate Code sections 15401 and 15402. The dispute revolves around a trust created by Jeane M. Bertsch, which was amended multiple times, with the final amendment excluding her niece, Brianna McKee Haggerty, from distribution. Haggerty challenged the validity of the final amendment, arguing that it was not properly notarized as required by the modification method specified in the trust agreement.The court held that under section 15402 of the Probate Code, a trust may be modified using the procedures set out under section 15401 for revocation, including the statutory method, unless the trust instrument specifies a method of modification and makes it exclusive, or it expressly precludes the use of revocation procedures for modification. The court clarified that merely distinguishing between revocation and modification in the trust instrument does not preclude the use of revocation procedures for modification.The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which held that Bertsch’s final amendment was a valid modification, since the trust agreement did not explicitly state that the specified method of modification was exclusive or expressly preclude the use of revocation procedures for modification.The court disapproved previous appellate decisions that were inconsistent with this holding, including King v. Lynch, Balistreri v. Balistreri, Diaz v. Zuniga, Pena v. Dey, Conservatorship of Irvine, and Haggerty v. Thornton. View "Haggerty v. Thornton" on Justia Law

In 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that the defendant, Oscar Manuel Vaquera, did not receive fair notice of the sentence that the prosecution was seeking in his case, which violated his right to due process. Vaquera was charged with two counts of a sex offense covered by California's "One Strike" law and was convicted on both counts. In the habeas corpus proceeding, Vaquera challenged the 25-year-to-life sentence the trial court imposed for the second count.The prosecution had initially requested a sentence of 15 years to life for the second count, but later argued for a 25-year-to-life sentence under a different provision of the One Strike law. Vaquera contended that the imposition of the 25-year-to-life sentence violated due process because he did not receive fair notice that the prosecution intended to seek that sentence. The California Supreme Court agreed with Vaquera and ordered the trial court to resentence him to 15 years to life for the second count.The Court ruled that the One Strike allegation in Vaquera's case did not provide him with fair notice that the prosecution was seeking a 25-year-to-life sentence under the specific provision of the law based on the victim's age. The Court held that due process requires an accusatory pleading to inform the defendant of the particular One Strike sentence the prosecution is seeking and of the factual basis it intends to prove to support that sentence. In this case, the prosecution did not provide fair notice of its intent to seek the longer One Strike sentence, which violated Vaquera's due process rights. View "In re Vaquera" on Justia Law