Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In May 2019, the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety imposed a 44-hour suspension on Officer David Meinhardt, which was upheld by the City of Sunnyvale Personnel Board. Meinhardt challenged the suspension by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. On August 6, 2020, the court issued an order denying the petition. Subsequently, on September 25, 2020, a formal judgment was entered, and Meinhardt filed a notice of appeal on October 15, 2020.The Fourth Appellate District, Division One, dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the August 6 order was the final judgment from which Meinhardt should have appealed. The court reasoned that the order denied the petition in its entirety and did not contemplate further action, thus starting the 60-day period for filing an appeal.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to resolve the uncertainty about when the time to appeal starts in writ of administrative mandate proceedings. The court held that the time to appeal begins with the entry of a "judgment" or the service of notice of entry of "judgment," rather than with the filing of an "order" or other ruling. This decision was based on the plain language of relevant statutes and rules, which contemplate the entry of a "judgment," and the policy of providing clear jurisdictional deadlines to avoid inadvertent forfeiture of the right to appeal. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluding that Meinhardt's notice of appeal was timely filed within 60 days of the entry of the September 25 judgment. View "Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale" on Justia Law

Twanda Bailey, an African-American employee, sued the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, former District Attorney George Gascon, and the City and County of San Francisco for racial harassment and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Bailey alleged that a coworker called her the N-word, and after reporting the incident, the human resources manager obstructed her complaint, engaged in intimidating conduct, and threatened her.The San Francisco City and County Superior Court granted summary judgment for the City, finding that Bailey failed to make a prima facie case for her FEHA claims. The trial court concluded that a single racial slur by a coworker did not constitute severe or pervasive harassment and that Bailey did not suffer an adverse employment action. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and held that an isolated act of harassment, such as the use of an unambiguous racial epithet like the N-word, can be actionable if it is sufficiently severe under the totality of the circumstances. The Court emphasized that the severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position. The Court also held that a course of conduct that effectively withdraws an employee’s means of reporting and addressing racial harassment can constitute an adverse employment action. The Court found that there were triable issues of fact regarding both Bailey’s harassment and retaliation claims and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office" on Justia Law

Peter Quach filed a lawsuit against California Commerce Club (Commerce Club) after being terminated from his job at the casino where he had worked for nearly 30 years. Quach's complaint included claims of wrongful termination, age discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, and he demanded a jury trial. Commerce Club had previously provided Quach with a signed arbitration agreement from 2015, which mandated binding arbitration for employment-related disputes. Instead of moving to compel arbitration, Commerce Club answered the complaint and engaged in extensive discovery, including propounding interrogatories and taking Quach’s deposition.The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied Commerce Club’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that Commerce Club had waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation for 13 months. The court noted that Commerce Club had actively participated in discovery and requested a jury trial, actions inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. Commerce Club appealed, and the Second Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Quach had not shown sufficient prejudice from Commerce Club’s delay in seeking arbitration.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and abrogated the state’s arbitration-specific prejudice requirement, aligning with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. The court held that under California law, as under federal law, courts should apply the same principles to determine waiver of the right to compel arbitration as they do for other contracts. The court concluded that Commerce Club had waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. View "Quach v. Cal. Commerce Club, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Business and Professions Code section 7451, enacted through Proposition 22, which classifies app-based drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash as independent contractors rather than employees, provided certain conditions are met. This classification exempts these drivers from California workers’ compensation laws, which typically apply to employees. Plaintiffs, including several individuals and unions, argue that section 7451 conflicts with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution, which grants the Legislature plenary power to create and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation.The Alameda County Superior Court found Proposition 22 unconstitutional, reasoning that it improperly limited the Legislature’s power to govern workers’ compensation, a power deemed "unlimited" by the state Constitution. The court held that the people must amend the Constitution through an initiative constitutional amendment, not an initiative statute, to impose such limitations. Consequently, the court invalidated Proposition 22 in its entirety.The California Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that article XIV, section 4 does not preclude the electorate from using its initiative power to legislate on workers’ compensation matters. The court reasoned that the Legislature’s power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and that Proposition 22 does not conflict with this constitutional provision. The court did, however, affirm the invalidation of certain severable provisions of Proposition 22 not at issue in this appeal.The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment, agreeing that section 7451 does not conflict with article XIV, section 4. The court held that the Legislature’s plenary power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and does not preclude the electorate from enacting legislation through the initiative process. The court did not address whether other provisions of Proposition 22 improperly constrain the Legislature’s authority, as those issues were not presented in this case. View "Castellanos v. State of California" on Justia Law

Jayde Downey was on the phone with her daughter, Malyah Jane Vance, giving driving directions when Vance was severely injured in a car crash. Downey heard the collision and its immediate aftermath but could not see what caused it. She claims the crash was partly due to the condition of the roadway and sued the City of Riverside and the owners of adjacent private property for negligent infliction of emotional distress.The Riverside County Superior Court sustained the defendants' demurrers without leave to amend, agreeing that Downey could not claim emotional distress damages because she was not aware of the defendants' role in causing the crash at the time it occurred. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Downey needed to show contemporaneous awareness of the causal connection between the defendants' negligence and her daughter's injuries.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and concluded that the Court of Appeal erred. The court held that for purposes of emotional distress recovery, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to be aware of an event that is injuring the victim, not necessarily the defendant’s role in causing the injury. The court emphasized that the requirement is awareness of the injury-producing event, not the specific negligent conduct of the defendant. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Downey v. City of Riverside" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl procured a homeowners insurance policy from State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, which covered various risks including fire. After her neighbor fell on her staircase, she discovered the stairs needed replacement and filed a claim with State Farm. The insurer denied her claim, citing policy exclusions. Rosenberg-Wohl then filed two lawsuits: one for breach of contract and another under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding State Farm’s general claims-handling practices.The San Francisco City and County Superior Court sustained State Farm’s demurrer, concluding that the one-year limitations period in the insurance policy applied to all of Rosenberg-Wohl’s claims, including her UCL claim. The court reasoned that her claims were essentially “on the policy” because they were grounded in the denial of her insurance claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, with a majority agreeing that the one-year limitations period applied, while a dissenting justice argued that the UCL’s four-year limitations period should govern.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and concluded that the one-year limitations period in section 2071 of the Insurance Code and the insurance policy did not apply to Rosenberg-Wohl’s UCL cause of action. The court determined that her lawsuit was not a “suit or action on [the] policy for the recovery of any claim” because she sought only declaratory and injunctive relief, not a financial recovery under the policy. The court emphasized that the UCL’s four-year statute of limitations governed her claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

A former employee sued her employer, Charter Communications, Inc., alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as wrongful discharge. Charter moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement the employee had signed during the onboarding process. The employee opposed, arguing the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found the agreement to be a contract of adhesion and substantively unconscionable due to provisions that shortened the time for filing claims, allowed Charter to recover attorney fees contrary to FEHA, and imposed an interim fee award for compelling arbitration. The court refused to enforce the agreement, finding it permeated with unconscionability. The Second Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed, identifying additional unconscionable provisions and disagreeing with another appellate decision regarding interim fee awards.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and agreed that certain provisions of the arbitration agreement were substantively unconscionable, including the lack of mutuality in covered and excluded claims, the shortened limitations period for filing claims, and the potential for an unlawful award of attorney fees. The court clarified that the discovery limitations were not unconscionable, as the arbitrator had the authority to order additional discovery if necessary.The Supreme Court held that the agreement's unconscionable provisions could potentially be severed, and the matter was remanded for further consideration of whether the unconscionable provisions could be severed to enforce the remainder of the agreement. The court also concluded that the Court of Appeal’s decision did not violate the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

Michael Allan Lamb was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder of a peace officer, conspiracy to commit murder, unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm in public as a gang member, possession of a firearm by a felon, and street terrorism. The jury found true the gang-murder special-circumstance allegation and other gang-related enhancements. Lamb was sentenced to death after a penalty phase retrial.The Orange County Superior Court initially reviewed the case, where the jury convicted Lamb on all counts but failed to reach a penalty verdict. A different jury at the penalty phase retrial fixed the penalty at death, and the court entered a judgment of death. Lamb's appeal to the California Supreme Court was automatic.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed Lamb’s convictions for street terrorism and unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm in public due to recent amendments to section 186.22 from Assembly Bill No. 333. The court also reversed the true findings on the gang enhancements and the gang-murder special circumstance. The death judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for any retrial of the reversed convictions, enhancements, and special circumstance. In all other respects, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Lamb" on Justia Law

In January 1992, J. Sacramento Benitez was killed during a residential burglary and attempted robbery. Luis Ramon Manzano Arellano and two co-defendants were charged with murder, attempted robbery, and first-degree burglary, with firearm use enhancements. Arellano pled guilty to second-degree murder under conditions that included striking the firearm enhancement and dismissing the robbery and burglary charges. He was sentenced to 15 years to life.The Santa Clara County Superior Court received Arellano's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 in October 2020. The district attorney initially opposed but later stipulated to resentencing. The court vacated Arellano's murder conviction and set a hearing to redesignate the charge. The trial court agreed to redesignate the conviction as attempted robbery with a firearm enhancement, despite defense objections that the enhancement was neither admitted nor found true by a jury.The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the firearm enhancement could not be imposed because it was not proven or admitted. The court held that section 1172.6 does not allow for the imposition of uncharged and unproven enhancements during resentencing.The Supreme Court of California affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment, holding that section 1172.6, subdivision (e) does not permit a court to impose a sentencing enhancement unless it was pled and proven or admitted by the defendant. The court emphasized that the resentencing procedure is limited to the target offense or underlying felony and does not include uncharged and unproven enhancements. The Supreme Court also reversed the Court of Appeal's order for a remand to reconsider the redesignated conviction, as the trial court had already considered and chosen not to redesignate the underlying felony as burglary. View "People v. Arellano" on Justia Law

This case involves five large water utilities and an association representing investor-owned water utilities' interests, collectively referred to as the Water Companies. The Water Companies sought to overturn an order by the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) that eliminated a conservation-focused ratesetting mechanism known as the Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM). The WRAM was designed to encourage water conservation by decoupling a water company's revenue from the amount of water sold. The Commission's order to eliminate the WRAM was not based on the merits of the mechanism but on procedural issues.The Commission's decision to eliminate the WRAM was made in a proceeding that was ostensibly focused on improving the accuracy of water sales forecasts. The Water Companies argued that the Commission did not provide adequate notice that the elimination of the WRAM was one of the issues to be considered in the proceeding.The Supreme Court of California agreed with the Water Companies. The court found that the Commission's scoping memos, which are supposed to outline the issues to be considered in a proceeding, did not provide adequate notice that the WRAM's elimination was on the table. The court concluded that the Commission's failure to give adequate notice required the order to be set aside. The court did not rule on the merits of the WRAM itself. View "Golden State Water Co. v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law