Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Michael R. Rattagan, an Argentinian lawyer, was retained by Uber Technologies, Inc. through its Dutch subsidiaries to assist with launching Uber's ridesharing platform in Argentina. Rattagan also agreed to act as the Dutch subsidiaries' legal representative in Argentina, a role that exposed him to personal liability under Argentinian law. Despite warnings about potential personal exposure, Uber allegedly concealed its plans to launch the platform in Buenos Aires, which led to significant legal and reputational harm to Rattagan when the launch was deemed illegal by local authorities.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Rattagan’s third amended complaint without leave to amend, ruling that his fraudulent concealment claims were barred by the economic loss rule as interpreted in Robinson Helicopter v. Dana Corp. The court concluded that Robinson provided only a narrow exception to the economic loss rule, which did not apply to Rattagan’s claims of fraudulent concealment. The court also found that Rattagan’s negligence and implied covenant claims were time-barred.The Supreme Court of California, upon request from the Ninth Circuit, addressed whether a plaintiff may assert a tort claim for fraudulent concealment arising from or related to the performance of a contract under California law. The court held that a plaintiff may assert such a claim if the elements of the claim can be established independently of the parties’ contractual rights and obligations, and if the tortious conduct exposes the plaintiff to a risk of harm beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract. The court clarified that the economic loss rule does not bar tort recovery for fraudulent concealment in these circumstances. View "Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to modernize the billing system for the Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The rollout in 2013 resulted in billing errors, leading the City to sue PwC in 2015, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. Concurrently, a class action was filed against the City by Antwon Jones, represented by attorney Jack Landskroner, for overbilling. Discovery revealed that the City’s special counsel had orchestrated the class action to settle claims favorably for the City while planning to recover costs from PwC.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found the City engaged in extensive discovery abuse to conceal its misconduct, including withholding documents and providing false testimony. The court imposed $2.5 million in monetary sanctions against the City under the Civil Discovery Act, specifically sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, which allow sanctions for discovery misuse.The California Court of Appeal reversed the sanctions, interpreting the Civil Discovery Act as not granting general authority to impose sanctions for discovery misconduct beyond specific discovery methods. The appellate court held that sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize sanctions but must be read in conjunction with other provisions of the Act.The Supreme Court of California reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that the trial court did have the authority to impose monetary sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 for the City’s pattern of discovery abuse. The Supreme Court clarified that these sections provide general authority to sanction discovery misuse, including systemic abuses not covered by specific discovery method provisions. View "City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP" on Justia Law

The case involves Angelica A. (mother) and Luis C. (father), who have two children, Dezi C. and Joshua C. In 2019, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed petitions to assert dependency jurisdiction over the children due to the parents' substance abuse and domestic violence issues. Both parents denied having Indian heritage on their Parental Notification of Indian Status forms. The juvenile court initially found that ICWA did not apply based on the parents' denials. The children were removed from their parents' custody, and the parents were provided with reunification services, which were later terminated due to non-compliance. The court eventually terminated the parents' rights, concluding the children were adoptable by their paternal grandparents.The mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the Department failed to comply with its duty under ICWA and related California provisions to inquire about the children's possible Indian ancestry from extended family members. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the Department's inquiry was deficient but concluded the error was harmless unless the record suggested a reason to believe the children might be Indian children.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case to resolve the conflict among lower courts regarding the standard for assessing prejudice from an inadequate ICWA inquiry. The Court held that an inadequate Cal-ICWA inquiry requires conditional reversal of the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights. The Department must conduct an adequate inquiry and document it properly. If the juvenile court finds the inquiry proper and concludes ICWA does not apply, the termination order will be reinstated. If ICWA applies, the court must proceed accordingly. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting tribal rights and ensuring compliance with ICWA and Cal-ICWA to determine whether a child is an Indian child. View "In re Dezi C." on Justia Law

Kenneth D. was born prematurely and tested positive for amphetamine and syphilis. His mother admitted to using methamphetamine during her pregnancy. The Placer County Department of Health and Human Services filed a juvenile dependency petition to remove Kenneth from his mother and her partner, T.D., due to suspected drug use. Initial inquiries about potential Native American heritage were made, but both mother and T.D. denied having any. Kenneth was placed in temporary custody.The Placer County Superior Court recognized T.D. as the presumed father based on a voluntary declaration of paternity and Kenneth’s birth certificate. Kenneth was adjudged a dependent and removed from the parents' custody. The court found that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply. Later, J.T. was confirmed as Kenneth’s biological father, but the court did not inquire about his potential Native American heritage. The court terminated parental rights and approved an adoption plan, again finding ICWA did not apply. J.T. appealed, arguing the failure to comply with ICWA’s inquiry and notice provisions.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, absent exceptional circumstances, an appellate court may not consider postjudgment evidence to conclude that an ICWA inquiry error was harmless. The court emphasized that the sufficiency of an ICWA inquiry must generally be determined by the juvenile court in the first instance. The Court of Appeal’s consideration of postjudgment evidence was deemed erroneous. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and directed a conditional reversal of the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights, remanding the case for compliance with ICWA and California implementing statutes. View "In re Kenneth D." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees of a hospital operated by Alameda Health System (AHS), alleged that AHS violated California labor laws by denying meal and rest breaks, failing to keep accurate payroll records, and not paying full wages. They sought civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).The Alameda County Superior Court sustained AHS’s demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that AHS, as a public entity, was not subject to the Labor Code provisions cited by plaintiffs. The court also dismissed the PAGA claim, reasoning that public entities are not “persons” subject to PAGA penalties.The California Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that AHS was not exempt from the meal and rest break requirements or the wage payment statutes. It distinguished AHS from state agencies, noting that the enabling statute indicated AHS was not an agency, division, or department of the county. However, the court agreed that AHS was exempt from the wage statement requirements and that it was not a “person” subject to default PAGA penalties.The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It held that the Legislature intended to exempt public employers, including hospital authorities like AHS, from the Labor Code provisions governing meal and rest breaks and related wage payment statutes. The Court also concluded that public entities are not subject to PAGA penalties for the violations alleged. The case was remanded to the trial court to reinstate its ruling on the demurrer and conduct any further proceedings as appropriate. View "Stone v. Alameda Health System" on Justia Law

In June 2012, Maurice Walker assaulted a woman and a 78-year-old man in Los Angeles. Walker was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, and misdemeanor battery. The jury found true the enhancement allegations that he used a deadly weapon and inflicted great bodily injury on an elderly person. Walker admitted to having prior strike convictions and a prior serious felony conviction. Initially, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, which was later reduced to 19 years after one enhancement was struck in a habeas proceeding. Another habeas proceeding in 2018 led to the removal of his remaining prior prison term enhancement, and the case was remanded for potential resentencing.The Los Angeles County Superior Court conducted a full resentencing hearing in April 2022. Despite the new provisions of Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c)(2), which favor dismissing enhancements under certain mitigating circumstances, the trial court declined to dismiss Walker’s enhancements. The court did not find it in the interest of justice to dismiss the enhancements, even though multiple enhancements were present. Walker appealed, arguing that the trial court misapplied section 1385.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case to resolve a conflict between appellate courts on the interpretation of section 1385, subdivision (c)(2). The court concluded that the statute does not create a rebuttable presumption in favor of dismissing an enhancement unless it endangers public safety. Instead, it requires trial courts to give significant weight to mitigating circumstances but allows them to consider other factors. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, finding that Walker was not entitled to relief under the clarified interpretation of the statute. View "P. v. Walker" on Justia Law

John’s Grill, Inc., a restaurant in San Francisco, suffered significant financial losses during the COVID-19 pandemic and sought compensation from its property insurer, Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. Sentinel denied the claim, stating that the losses did not fall under the policy’s “Limited Fungi, Bacteria or Virus Coverage” endorsement, which only covers virus-related losses if the virus results from specific causes like windstorms or water damage. John’s Grill argued that this limitation made the virus-related coverage illusory and unenforceable.The San Francisco City and County Superior Court sustained Sentinel’s demurrer, finding the policy language clear and enforceable. The court reasoned that the specified causes of loss could potentially cause virus damage, thus the coverage was not illusory. The Court of Appeal reversed, agreeing with John’s Grill that the specified cause of loss limitation rendered the virus coverage illusory, as the listed causes were not realistically related to virus transmission. The appellate court held that the policy’s promise of virus-related coverage was illusory and allowed John’s Grill’s claims to proceed.The Supreme Court of California reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The court held that the policy’s specified cause of loss limitation was clear and unambiguous, and thus enforceable. It concluded that John’s Grill did not have a reasonable expectation of coverage for pandemic-related losses under the policy. The court also determined that the illusory coverage doctrine, as articulated by John’s Grill, did not apply because the policy did offer a realistic prospect for virus-related coverage under certain conditions. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "John's Grill, Inc. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc." on Justia Law

In June 2017, Scotlane McCune crashed a vehicle into a tree while driving without a license, injuring his passenger, Miguel Villa. McCune fled the scene, leading to charges of felony hit and run with injury and misdemeanor driving without a license. He pleaded no contest to the felony charge, and the misdemeanor was dismissed. In June 2018, McCune was placed on five years’ probation and ordered to pay restitution to Villa, with the amount to be determined later. In December 2020, Villa sought $30,166.23 in restitution. However, new legislation effective January 1, 2021, capped felony probation at two years, leading to the termination of McCune’s probation on January 14, 2021. The trial court later set the restitution amount at $21,365.94.McCune objected, arguing that the court lacked authority to set the restitution amount after his probation ended. The trial court disagreed, citing Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.46, which allow the court to retain jurisdiction to determine restitution amounts until the victim’s losses are ascertainable. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, stating that the court’s authority to fix restitution amounts persists even after probation ends, as per sections 1202.4 and 1202.46.The Supreme Court of California affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The court held that section 1202.46 applies to both probation and nonprobation cases, allowing the court to retain jurisdiction to set restitution amounts once the victim’s losses become ascertainable. The court rejected McCune’s argument that section 1203.3 limits this authority to the probation term, clarifying that section 1202.46 provides additional authority to ensure full victim restitution, consistent with the constitutional mandate. The court disapproved of contrary interpretations in Hilton v. Superior Court and People v. Waters. View "P. v. McCune" on Justia Law

Robert Ward Frazier was convicted by a jury of the murder, forcible rape, and forcible sodomy of Kathleen Loreck. The jury also found true two felony-murder special-circumstance allegations. At the penalty phase, the jury returned a death verdict, which the trial court upheld, sentencing Frazier to death. Frazier's appeal is automatic.The trial court excused a prospective juror for cause due to his views on the death penalty, denied Frazier's request for individually sequestered voir dire, and gave a jury instruction on flight from the scene of a crime. The court also denied Frazier's requests to represent himself during the penalty phase and post-verdict proceedings, including the hearing on his automatic motion to modify the death verdict and sentencing.The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court held that the trial court did not err in excusing the prospective juror, as substantial evidence supported the finding that the juror's views would substantially impair his performance. The court also found no error in denying individually sequestered voir dire, as there is no federal constitutional requirement for such in capital cases, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion under state law.The court upheld the flight instruction, finding sufficient evidence to support it and rejecting Frazier's additional arguments against the instruction. The court also ruled that Frazier's requests for self-representation were untimely and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying them. Finally, the court rejected Frazier's claim that his Sixth Amendment right to choose the objective of his defense was violated by the presentation of certain mitigating evidence over his objection. View "P. v. Frazier" on Justia Law