Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that under California's Motor Carriers of Property Permit Act, Cal. Veh. Code 34600 et seq., a commercial automobile insurance policy does not continue in full force and effect until the insurer cancels a corresponding certificate of insurance on file with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).Insured was driving a truck covered by his policy with Insurer when he collided with a car, killing its driver. The driver's parents sued Insured for wrongful death, and Insured tendered his defense to Insurer. Insurer settled the claim for its policy limits and then sued Insured's former insurer (Defendant) for declaratory relief, equitable contribution, and equitable subrogation. The trial court held that Defendant's policy remained in effect on the date of the collision because one of Defendant's cancellation notices was rejected by the DMV as incomplete. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question of law to the Supreme Court, which answered that the Act does not require a commercial auto insurance policy to remain in effective indefinitely until the insurer cancels the certificate of insurance on file with the DMV. View "Allied Premier Insurance v. United Financial Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a claim for reimbursement of emergency medical services may be maintained against a health care service plan when the plan is operated by a public entity and that the Government Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code 810 et seq., did not immunize the County of Santa Clara from such a claim in this case.Two hospitals submitted reimbursement claims for the emergency medical services they provided to three individuals enrolled in a County-operated health care service plan. The hospitals sued for the remaining amounts based on the reimbursement provision of the Knox-Keene Act, and the trial court concluded that the hospitals could state a quantum merit claim against the County. The court of appeal reversed, determining that the County was immune from suit under the Government Claims Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the County was not immune from suit under the circumstances of this case and that the hospitals' claims may proceed. View "County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal affirming an award of attorney's fees under Cal. Gov. Code 91003(a) to a prevailing defendant, holding that a prevailing defendant under the Political Reform Act "should not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was objectively without foundation when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so."Plaintiffs, two residents of the City of Redondo Beach, sought injunctive relief against certain supporters of a local initiative to compel their compliance with the Political Reform Act. The trial court ruled in favor of Defendants on all claims and awarded Defendants costs and attorney's fees as prevailing parties under 91003(a). The court of appeal affirmed the award of attorney's fees, holding that the statute grants trial courts discretion to award attorney's fees and costs to either a plaintiff or a defendant who prevailed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 91003(a) imposes an asymmetrical standard, which constrains the trial court's discretion to award a prevailing defendant attorney's fees. View "Travis v. Brand" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeal affirming the judgment of the probate court denying Petitioner's petition to issue the predicate findings he needed to support an application to the federal government for special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status, holding that the probate court applied an incorrect legal framework in ruling on Petitioner's petition.Petitioner, who left his native El Salvador at the age of sixteen to escape gang violence, filed an SIJ petition the day after he turned eighteen. The probate court denied the petition, and the court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with direction that the case be remanded to the probate court for issuance of SIJ predicate findings, holding that returning Petitioner to live in El Salvador would be detrimental to his best interest under California law. View "In re Guardianship of Saul H." on Justia Law

In this lawsuit challenging the sufficiency of an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared by California's Department of Water Resources (DWR) the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeal finding that the claims brought by Butte and Plumas Counties under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code 21000 et seq., were preempted, holding that the court of appeal erred in part.The Counties brought a challenge to the environmental sufficiency of a settlement DWR prepared as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) proceedings, 16 U.S.C. 817(1), and to the sufficiency of the EIR more generally. The court of appeals found that the action was preempted by the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the Counties' claims were preempted to the extent they attempted to unwind the terms of a settlement agreement reached through a federal process and sought to enjoin DWR from operating certain facilities; but (2) the court of appeals erred in finding the Counties' CEQA claims entirely preempted. View "County of Butte v. Dep't of Water Resources" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation acted within the authority provided by Cal. Const. art. I, 32(b) when it adopted regulations prohibiting early parole consideration under the scheme set forth in Proposition 57, The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, for inmates "currently serving a term of incarceration for a 'violent felony.'"After Petitioner was convicted of nine violent felony counts and six nonviolent felony counts voters approved Proposition 57. The Department subsequently adopted regulations implementing early parole considerations, including the regulations at issue here. Consistent with these regulations, the Department determined that Petitioner was ineligible for nonviolent offender early parole consideration because he was serving a term of incarceration for a violent felony. The court of appeal granted relief, concluding that the language of article I, section 32(a) requires early parole consideration for any inmate convicted of a nonviolent felony even when that inmate was also convicted of a violent felony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Department acted within its authority provided by article I, section 32(b) when it adopted the regulation at issue. View "In re Mohammad" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal concluding that Petitioners' failure to present their objections to business improvement districts (BIDs) assessment schemes at appropriate public hearings meant that they had not exhausted their extrajudicial remedies, holding that Petitioners need not have raised their specific objections to the BIDs at the public hearings to later advance those arguments in court.Petitioners initiated two actions challenging arguing that two BIDs' assessment schemes violated certain provisions of Proposition 218 and seeking relief that would remove any obligation that they pay assessments for the BIDs. The superior court reached the merits of Petitioners' claims, ultimately denying them in full. The court of appeal declined to address Petitioners' claims on the merits, concluding that Petitioners had failed to exhaust their extrajudicial remedies because they did not first present their objections at the appropriate public hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Petitioners were not required to articulate their objections to the BID assessment schemes at public hearings before presenting their arguments in these proceedings. View "Hill RHF Housing Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal rejecting Appellant's challenge to the denial of his motion to disqualify A. Robert Singer as a hearing officer in a peer review proceeding, holding that the record did not establish that Singer should be disqualified for financial bias under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 809.2, subdivision (b).A medical executive committee adopted a recommendation to terminate Appellant's medical staff membership and hospital privileges. Appellant requested a peer review hearing to review the recommendation, and the hospital president exercised authority delegated by the medical staff to select Singer to serve as the hearing officer. Appellant challenged Singer's appointment on grounds of financial bias, but Singer denied the challenge. The peer review panel upheld the revocation of Appellant's staff membership and privileges. The superior court denied Appellant's petition for a writ of administrative mandate, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circumstances surrounding Singer's appointment did not create an intolerable risk of bias that would require disqualification under section 809.2(b). View "Natarajan v. Dignity Health" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the court of appeals denying a petition for a writ of supersedeas to stay the effect of an order of the superior court requiring the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to remove and replace one of its members, holding that the order should be stayed until the appellate court has determined whether the trial court was correct.The superior court's order was based on the court's ruling that the Board had violated statutory open-meeting requirements in making an appointment to a vacant board seat. The order required the Board to rescind the appointment and to seat a replacement board member to be named by the Governor. The Board petitioned the court of appeal for a writ of supersedeas and requested an immediate stay. The court of appeal denied the stay. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the order should have been automatically stayed as a mandatory injunction. View "Daly v. San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal concluding that William Palmer was entitled to release from all forms of custody, including parole supervision, holding that to the extent Palmer's continued incarceration at some point became constitutionally excessive, that alone did not justify ending his parole under the current statutory scheme.Palmer first sought release on parole in 1995. The Board of Parole Hearings denied parole. Palmer continued to seek release. After the Board's tenth denial, Palmer filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the thirty years he had served on a life sentence for an aggravated kidnapping committed when he was a juvenile was constitutionally excessive. The Board subsequently ordered Palmer released on parole. Ruling on Palmer's writ, the court of appeals concluded that Palmer's now-completed term of imprisonment had become unconstitutional and ended his parole. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in the absence of any persuasive argument from Palmer that his parole term had become constitutionally excessive, his parole remained valid. View "In re Palmer" on Justia Law