Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

William Cannon was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and dissuading a witness, after attacking a 16-year-old girl and confessing to other attempted sexual assaults. Near the end of his prison sentence, the district attorney petitioned to commit him under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), which allows for the civil commitment of certain sex offenders after their sentences if they are found to be sexually violent predators. During pretrial proceedings, Cannon’s attorney, without Cannon’s personal attendance or express waiver, waived his right to a jury trial. The trial court did not advise Cannon of his jury trial rights or seek his personal waiver, as the SVPA does not require these steps. Following a bench trial, Cannon was found to be a sexually violent predator and was committed.On appeal, Cannon argued for the first time that the SVPA’s procedures violated his state and federal equal protection rights because, unlike other civil commitment schemes for individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) or those with mental health disorders (OMHD), the SVPA does not require a judicial advisement of the right to a jury trial or a personal waiver from the defendant. The Court of Appeal considered the equal protection claim despite it not being raised below, found that rational basis review was the appropriate standard, and remanded the case to the trial court to allow the parties to develop a fuller record and litigate the equal protection issue.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine the appropriate standard of scrutiny for Cannon’s equal protection challenge. The court held that rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, applies to the SVPA’s jury trial demand and waiver procedures. The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s remand order, directing the trial court to determine whether the legislative choice of procedures is constitutionally justified under rational basis review and whether Cannon knowingly waived his right to a jury trial. The order of commitment is conditionally affirmed pending the outcome of those proceedings. View "P. v. Cannon" on Justia Law

The case concerns the death of Skyler A. Womack, a dependent adult with disabilities who resided at a 24-hour skilled nursing facility operated by Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. After Skyler’s death, his parents filed suit against the facility, alleging that neglect—including understaffing, failure to maintain the facility, and inadequate provision of basic needs—led to his injuries and death. The claims included survivor actions and a wrongful death claim. Notably, Skyler had signed an arbitration agreement upon admission, which stated that any medical malpractice disputes would be subject to arbitration and purported to bind his heirs.In the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Silverscreen moved to compel arbitration of all claims based on the arbitration agreement and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Ruiz v. Podolsky. The trial court compelled arbitration of the survivor claims but denied arbitration for the parents’ wrongful death claim, reasoning that the claim was based on neglect under the Elder Abuse Act, not professional negligence. The California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the wrongful death claim was subject to arbitration because it was based on professional negligence as defined by the agreement and relevant statutes.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court held that the exception recognized in Ruiz v. Podolsky applies only to wrongful death claims that are based on medical malpractice as defined by the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), specifically disputes about whether medical services were improperly rendered. The Court clarified that not all wrongful death claims against health care providers fall within this exception—claims based on custodial neglect, as opposed to professional negligence in medical care, are not subject to arbitration under section 1295 and Ruiz. The Court remanded the case to allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint to clarify the basis of their wrongful death claim. View "Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

Ty Whitehead suffered a serious head injury during a bicycle training ride for a charity fundraiser due to a large pothole on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. Whitehead alleged that the City of Oakland breached its statutory duty to maintain a safe roadway. Prior to the ride, Whitehead signed a release and waiver of liability, which included a provision discharging the City from any liability for negligence.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that the release was valid and enforceable, thus barring Whitehead’s claim. The court reasoned that the release did not affect the public interest, relying on the multifactor test from Tunkl v. Regents of University of California. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, also relying on the Tunkl framework.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and concluded that the release was against public policy under Civil Code section 1668, which prohibits contracts that exempt a party from responsibility for their own fraud, willful injury, or violation of law. The court held that an agreement to exculpate a party for future violations of a statutory duty designed to protect public safety is unenforceable. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the City to argue the doctrine of primary assumption of risk on remand. View "Whitehead v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

Daniel Escamilla, a certified fugitive recovery agent, searched the home of Lan Ting Wu and Andy Yu Feng Yang in 2012, looking for Yang’s brother, who was wanted on felony drug trafficking charges. Yang, Wu, and their minor son sued Escamilla for assault, battery, trespass, false imprisonment, and emotional distress. Their lawyer, John Vannucci, represented them. Escamilla defended the search as supported by probable cause and cross-complained against Yang for abuse of process. In 2019, a jury found in favor of Escamilla on all claims and awarded him $20,000 in damages. On August 30, 2021, Escamilla filed a malicious prosecution action against Yang, Wu, and Vannucci.The Alameda County Superior Court granted Vannucci’s motion to strike Escamilla’s complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), agreeing that the one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys under section 340.6 applied, making the suit time-barred. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine the appropriate statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action against an attorney. The court held that section 340.6, which provides a one-year limitations period for certain suits against attorneys, does not apply to claims brought by parties who were never their clients or the intended beneficiaries of their clients. Instead, the two-year statute of limitations under section 335.1 applies to malicious prosecution claims brought by formerly adverse parties. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to consider any unaddressed arguments in the anti-SLAPP motion. View "Escamilla v. Vannucci" on Justia Law

Oscar and Audrey Madrigal purchased a car from Hyundai Motor America in 2011 for $24,172.73. The car allegedly did not function as warranted, and repeated repair attempts failed. The Madrigals requested Hyundai to repurchase the car under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, but Hyundai refused, leading the Madrigals to sue for violations of the Act. Hyundai made two settlement offers under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, which the Madrigals did not accept. On the first day of trial, after the court tentatively ruled against the Madrigals on pretrial motions, the parties settled for $39,000, with the Madrigals retaining the right to seek costs and attorney fees by motion.The Placer County Superior Court ruled that section 998 did not apply because the case settled before trial, and awarded the Madrigals $84,742.50 in attorney fees and $17,681.05 in other costs. Hyundai appealed, arguing that the Madrigals should not recover any postoffer costs because they settled for less than the second 998 offer. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that section 998’s cost-shifting provisions applied and remanded for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of California affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court held that section 998’s cost-shifting provisions apply even when a case settles before trial but after a section 998 offer is rejected or deemed withdrawn. The Court reasoned that the statute’s language and purpose—to encourage the settlement of lawsuits before trial—support this interpretation. The Court clarified that parties are free to agree on their own allocation of costs and fees as part of a settlement agreement, but absent such an agreement, section 998’s default cost-shifting rules apply. View "Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioners sought to disqualify a trial court judge based on alleged bias and prejudice. The underlying litigation was a wage-and-hour class action initiated in 2007. The trial judge found the petitioners liable in 2016 and entered a judgment of approximately $43.5 million in 2022. During the proceedings, the petitioners underwent corporate restructurings, leading the real parties in interest to amend their complaint to add new defendants, alleging a strategy to evade judgment. The trial judge made comments in 2020 and 2021 that the petitioners later cited as evidence of bias.The Fresno County Superior Court judge struck the petitioners' statement of disqualification as untimely. The petitioners then sought writ review in the Court of Appeal, which held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) precluded the application of the timeliness requirement when a party alleges judicial bias or prejudice. The Court of Appeal ordered the trial judge to reinstate the petitioners' verified statement of disqualification.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeal's interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) applies only to judicial self-disqualification and does not affect the timeliness requirement for party-initiated disqualification attempts under section 170.3(c)(1). The Court emphasized that the timeliness requirement is essential to prevent strategic delays and ensure prompt resolution of disqualification issues. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for the lower court to determine whether the petitioners' statement of disqualification was filed in a timely manner. View "North American Title Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In this case, a fire destroyed a building where Cory Michael Hoehn and his roommate had leased an apartment. The building’s insurer, California Capital Insurance Company, determined that the fire was caused by careless smoking and sued Hoehn and his roommate for negligence, seeking damages. The company attempted to serve Hoehn with a complaint and summons, but the service was allegedly improper. A default judgment was entered against Hoehn for $486,528. Years later, Hoehn learned of the judgment when his wages were garnished and moved to set aside the default judgment, claiming he was never properly served.The Placer County Superior Court denied Hoehn’s motion, ruling it was time-barred because it was filed more than two years after the default judgment. The court also found no extrinsic fraud or mistake. The Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on precedent that a motion to vacate a judgment for improper service must be made within two years if the judgment is not void on its face.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine the validity of the two-year time limit for such motions. The court held that the judicially created rule imposing a two-year limit on motions to vacate void judgments for improper service is not supported by the statute’s text, legislative intent, or sound justification. The court concluded that a motion to vacate a judgment void for lack of proper service under section 473(d) is not subject to a two-year limitation. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "California Capital Insurance Co. v. Hoehn" on Justia Law

In this case, a fire destroyed the building where Cory Michael Hoehn and his roommate lived. The building’s insurer, California Capital Insurance Company, determined that careless smoking caused the fire and sued Hoehn and his roommate for negligence, seeking damages. The company attempted to serve Hoehn with the complaint and summons, but the service was allegedly improper. A default judgment was entered against Hoehn in April 2011. In January 2020, Hoehn learned of the default judgment when his wages were garnished and promptly moved to set aside the judgment, claiming he was never properly served.The Placer County Superior Court denied Hoehn’s motion, ruling it was time-barred because it was filed more than two years after the default judgment. The court also found no extrinsic fraud or mistake. The Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on precedent that a motion to vacate a judgment for improper service must be made within two years if the judgment is not void on its face.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine the validity of the two-year time limit for such motions. The court held that the judicially created rule imposing a two-year limit on motions to vacate void judgments for improper service is not supported by the statute’s text, legislative intent, or sound justification. The court concluded that a motion to vacate a judgment void for lack of proper service under section 473(d) is not subject to a two-year limitation. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Cal. Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioners sought to disqualify a trial court judge based on alleged bias and prejudice. The key facts revolve around a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit initiated by the real parties in interest against the petitioners, their employer. During the litigation, the trial judge made comments suggesting the petitioners were attempting to evade liability through corporate restructuring. These comments were cited by the petitioners as evidence of bias.The Fresno County Superior Court judge struck the petitioners' statement of disqualification as untimely. The petitioners then sought writ review in the Court of Appeal, which held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) precluded the application of the timeliness requirement in section 170.3(c)(1) when a party alleges judicial bias or prejudice. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the nonwaiver provision should be interpreted to prohibit all forms of waiver, including implied waiver due to untimeliness.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeal's interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) applies only to judicial self-disqualification and does not affect the timeliness requirement for party-initiated disqualification attempts under section 170.3(c)(1). The Court emphasized that the statutory text, structure, legislative history, and case law support this interpretation. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for the lower court to determine whether the petitioners' statement of disqualification was filed in a timely manner. View "North Am. Title Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

David Meinhardt, a police officer, was suspended for 44 hours by the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, a decision upheld by the City of Sunnyvale Personnel Board. Meinhardt filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, challenging the suspension. On August 6, 2020, the court issued an order denying the petition. The City served Meinhardt with a notice of entry of this order on August 14, 2020. Subsequently, on September 25, 2020, the court entered a formal judgment, which Meinhardt served on the City on September 22, 2020.The Fourth Appellate District, Division One, dismissed Meinhardt's appeal as untimely, holding that the August 6 order was the final judgment from which the appeal should have been taken. The court reasoned that the order was sufficiently final to constitute the judgment, thus starting the 60-day period for filing an appeal.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to resolve the issue of when the time to appeal begins in administrative mandate proceedings. The court held that the time to appeal starts with the entry of a formal judgment or the service of notice of entry of judgment, not with the filing of an order or other ruling. The court emphasized the importance of clear, bright-line rules to avoid confusion and ensure that parties do not inadvertently forfeit their right to appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, finding that Meinhardt's appeal, filed within 60 days of the entry of the formal judgment, was timely. View "Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale" on Justia Law