Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brittney Collins was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of her two-month-old son, Abel James Norwood, who was killed by his father, Matthew Norwood. Norwood committed the fatal act while Abel was under his care, and Collins was in another room. Collins and Norwood had a history of drug use, and Norwood had previously expressed not wanting the baby and had been abusive towards Collins during her pregnancy. On the day of the incident, Collins was recovering from childbirth complications and was in the front room while Norwood was caring for Abel in the back bedroom. Collins heard a bang but did not check on Abel immediately. Later, she found Abel in a state of medical emergency, and he was taken to the hospital, where he later died from blunt force trauma.The Kern County Superior Court convicted Collins of second-degree murder and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. The Court of Appeal affirmed the murder conviction, reasoning that Collins knew of Norwood’s abuse and intentionally failed to protect Abel, including on the day of the fatal act.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Collins of second-degree murder. The court clarified that for implied malice murder based on a failure-to-protect theory, the evidence must show that the parent knew to a substantial degree of certainty that a life-endangering act was occurring or about to occur and failed to act in conscious disregard for life. The court found that Collins did not have the requisite mens rea to support a conviction under either a direct aider and abettor theory or a direct perpetrator theory. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded with instructions to vacate Collins’s conviction for second-degree murder and resentence her accordingly. View "People v. Collins" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, Giles Albert Nadey, Jr., who was convicted of unlawful sodomy and first-degree murder for the killing of Terena Fermenick. The jury found that both offenses were committed with the use of a knife and that the murder occurred during the commission of unlawful sodomy. After the first jury deadlocked on the penalty, a second jury returned a verdict of death. This appeal is automatic.In the lower court, the Alameda County Superior Court, the defendant was found guilty of the charges. The first penalty phase jury could not reach a unanimous decision, resulting in a mistrial. A second penalty phase trial was conducted, where the jury returned a death sentence. The defendant raised several issues on appeal, including claims of juror misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, and the exclusion of lingering doubt evidence.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and addressed multiple claims. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the lingering doubt evidence, as it had minimal probative value and risked confusing the jury. The court also concluded that the prosecutor's use of derogatory epithets and the display of extra-record materials during closing arguments constituted misconduct but did not result in prejudice warranting reversal. The court held that the trial court's response to a juror note regarding defense access to a DNA expert was not prejudicial. Additionally, the court rejected the defendant's constitutional challenges to California's death penalty statute and instructions.The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment, upholding the defendant's conviction and death sentence. View "People v. Nadey" 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

Plaintiffs Everardo Rodriguez and Judith Arellano purchased a two-year-old car with over 55,000 miles on it, which still had an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty. Despite numerous repair attempts by the defendant, FCA US, LLC (FCA), the car continued to experience engine problems. Plaintiffs sued FCA under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking to enforce the refund-or-replace provision, claiming their car was a “new motor vehicle” because it was sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty.The Riverside County Superior Court granted FCA’s motion for summary judgment, agreeing with FCA that the refund-or-replace remedy did not apply because the plaintiffs’ car was not a “new motor vehicle” under the Act. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, holding that the phrase “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” did not cover previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The court held that a motor vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty does not qualify as a “motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” under section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2) of the Song-Beverly Act unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale. The court concluded that the statutory language, context, and legislative history supported this interpretation, distinguishing between new and used vehicles and their respective warranty protections under the Act. View "Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC" 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

The case involves Taylor Capito, who filed a class action lawsuit against San Jose Healthcare System, LP, also known as Regional Medical Center San Jose, challenging the assessment of Evaluation and Management Services (EMS) fees for two emergency room visits. Capito argued that Regional had a duty to notify emergency room patients about EMS fees beyond listing them in the chargemaster, such as through posted signage or during the patient registration process. She claimed that Regional's failure to do so constituted an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).The trial court sustained Regional's demurrer without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court reasoned that hospitals do not have a duty to disclose EMS fees beyond what is required by the relevant statutory and regulatory framework, following the reasoning in similar cases like Gray v. Dignity Health and Saini v. Sutter Health. The Court of Appeal also affirmed the trial court's order striking the class allegations in Capito's first amended complaint.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment. The court held that hospitals do not have a duty under the UCL or CLRA, beyond their obligations under the relevant statutory and regulatory scheme, to disclose EMS fees prior to treating emergency room patients. The court emphasized that requiring such disclosure would alter the balance of competing interests, including price transparency and the provision of emergency care without regard to cost, as reflected in the multifaceted scheme developed by state and federal authorities. The court also dismissed Capito's appeal from the trial court's order striking her class allegations as moot. View "Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP" on Justia Law

A landlord, JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC (JJD), owns a shopping center in Elk Grove, California, and leased space to Jo-Ann Stores, LLC (Jo-Ann). The lease included a cotenancy provision allowing Jo-Ann to pay reduced rent if the number of anchor tenants or overall occupancy fell below a specified threshold. When two anchor tenants closed, Jo-Ann invoked this provision and paid reduced rent for about 20 months until the occupancy threshold was met again.The Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Jo-Ann, finding the cotenancy provision to be an alternative performance rather than a penalty. The Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District affirmed this decision, distinguishing the case from a previous ruling in Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress For Less, Inc., which found a similar provision to be an unenforceable penalty.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine the validity of the cotenancy provision. The court held that the provision was a valid form of alternative performance, allowing JJD a realistic choice between accepting lower rent or taking steps to increase occupancy. The court found that the provision did not constitute an unreasonable penalty under California Civil Code section 1671, nor did it result in a forfeiture under section 3275. The court emphasized that contracts should be enforced as written, especially when negotiated by sophisticated parties.The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, upholding the cotenancy provision as a valid and enforceable part of the lease agreement. View "JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2018, Richard Allen Mitchell was charged with one felony count of resisting an executive officer and one misdemeanor count of possessing a controlled substance. The prosecution also alleged that Mitchell had a prior "strike" conviction. Five years later, just before the trial was to begin, the trial court reduced the felony charge to a misdemeanor and referred Mitchell to a veterans court program.The Ventura County District Attorney sought review of the trial court's order by filing both an appeal and a petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal. The district attorney argued that the trial court lacked statutory authority to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor before sentencing. The Court of Appeal stayed the trial court proceedings and issued an order to show cause. After briefing, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court's order was unauthorized and granted the requested relief, determining that the order was appealable under certain statutory provisions.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeal's finding on appealability. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's order was not appealable under the cited statutory provisions because it did not set aside or terminate any portion of the action but merely modified the charges. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's order was unauthorized and in excess of its jurisdiction, making it subject to writ review. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal but noted that the trial court's subsequent actions, taken while a temporary stay was in effect, were void. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "People v. Superior Court (Mitchell)" 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

Plaintiffs Everardo Rodriguez and Judith Arellano purchased a two-year-old car with over 55,000 miles on it, which still had an unexpired manufacturer’s powertrain warranty. Despite numerous repair attempts by the defendant, FCA US, LLC (FCA), the car continued to experience engine problems. Plaintiffs sued FCA under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking to enforce the refund-or-replace provision, arguing that their car qualified as a “new motor vehicle” because it was sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty.The Riverside County Superior Court granted FCA’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs’ car did not qualify as a “new motor vehicle” under the Act. The Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the phrase “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” does not include previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that a motor vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty does not qualify as a “motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” under section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2) of the Song-Beverly Act unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale. The Court emphasized that the statutory language and the broader context of the Song-Beverly Act support this interpretation, maintaining the distinction between new and used vehicles and their respective warranty protections. View "Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law