Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, alleging that she was unlawfully terminated from employment. The complaint set forth two causes of action, one based on Cal. Health & Safety Code 1278.5(g) and one based on wrongful termination in violation of public policy. At issue in these proceedings was whether there was a right to a jury trial as to Plaintiff’s cause of action authorized by section 1278.5(g). The trial court denied a jury trial on the section 1278.5(g) cause of action. Plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled in Plaintiff’s favor, holding, inter alia, that the trial court erred in determining that there was no right to a jury trial in an action based on section 1278.5(g). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) a trial court ruling denying a requested jury trial may be challenged prior to trial by a petition for an extraordinary writ; but (2) there is no right to a jury trial in a cause of action for retaliatory termination under section 1278.5(g) when a plaintiff seeks damages in such an action. Remanded. View "Shaw v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a business relationship embodied in a series of oral and written agreements. Two of the written agreements contained clauses subjecting disputes arising out of the agreements to the sole jurisdiction of Florida courts. Plaintiff later brought this action for breach of contract, fraud, and related causes of action. Citing the two Florida forum selection clauses, Defendants moved to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non conveniens. The trial court granted the motion. Defendants then moved to recover $84,640 in attorney fees incurred in connection with the motion to dismiss, relying on an attorney fee clause in the agreements. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Defendants were not the prevailing party for purposes of Cal. Civ. Code 1717 because the merits of the contract issues were still under litigation. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Defendants’ motion for attorney fees because Defendants’ success in moving the litigation to Florida did not make them the prevailing party as a matter of law under section 1717. View "DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com" on Justia Law

Plaintiff opened a credit card account with Defendant Citibank, N.A. and purchased a credit protector plan. Defendant later amended the original agreement by adding an arbitration provision. The provision waived the right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum. The arbitration provision became effective in 2001. In 2011, Plaintiff filed this class action based on Defendant’s marketing of the Plan and the handling of a claim she made under it when she lost her job, alleging claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the unfair competition law (UCL), and the false advertising law. Defendant petitioned to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis pursuant to the arbitration provision. Based on the Broughton-Cruz rule, the trial court ordered Plaintiff to arbitrate all claims other than those for injunctive relief under the UCL, the CLRA, and the false advertising law. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for the trial court to order all of Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration, concluding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the Broughton-Cruz rule. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the arbitration provision was invalid and unenforceable because it waived Plaintiff’s right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum. Remanded. View "McGill v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

This California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) dispute centered on whether an environmental impact report (EIR) must identify areas that might qualify as environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act and account for those areas in its analysis of mitigation measures and project alternatives. The City of Newport Beach approved a project for the development of a parcel known as Banning Beach. Banning Ranch Conservancy (BRC) sought a writ of mandate to set aside the approval, alleging (1) the EIR was inadequate, and (2) the City violated a general plan provision by failing to work with the California Coastal Commission to identify wetlands and habitats. The trial court found the EIR sufficient but concluded that the general plan required the City to cooperate with the Coastal Commission before approving the project. The Court of Appeal (1) agreed that the EIR complied with CEQA requirements; but (2) reversed on the general plan issue. The Supreme Court reversed and granted BRC relief on its CEQA claim, holding (1) CEQA requires an EIR to identify areas that might qualify as ESHA under the Coastal Act; and (2) the City’s failure to discuss ESHA requirements and impacts was neither insubstantial nor merely technical. View "Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Canadian citizen, pleaded guilty to a drug possession charge. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw the plea on grounds of mistake or ignorance. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it was insufficient because Defendant had received the standard statutory advisement that a criminal conviction may have the consequences of deportation. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that receipt of the standard statutory advisement that a criminal conviction “may” have adverse immigration consequences does not bar a noncitizen defendant from seeking to withdraw a guilty plea on that basis. Remanded to permit the trial court to determine whether Defendant has shown good cause for withdrawing his plea. View "People v. Patterson" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether theft of access card account information is one of the crimes eligible for reduced punishment under Proposition 47. In 2014, Defendant pleaded no contest to a felony. Voters subsequently approved Proposition 47, which reduced the punishment for several crimes previously punished as felonies. In 2015, Petitioner filed a resentencing petition. The superior court denied the petition, concluding that Proposition 47 does not apply to theft of access card information. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that theft of access card account information is one of the crimes eligible for reduced punishment under Proposition 47. View "People v. Romanowski" on Justia Law

Under the terms of a spendthrift trust established by his parents, Defendant was entitled to receive over one million dollars, all to be paid out of trust principal. Before the trust’s first payment, Defendant filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee sought a declaratory judgment on the extent of the bankruptcy trustee’s interest in the trust. The bankruptcy court concluded that the bankruptcy trustee, standing as a hypothetical lien creditor, could reach twenty-five percent of Defendant’s interest in the trust. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the Supreme Court to clarify the relevant provisions of the California Probate Code. The Supreme Court held (1) where a spendthrift trust pays the beneficiary entirely out of principal, the California Probate Code does not limit a bankruptcy estate’s access to the trust to twenty-five percent of the beneficiary’s interest; and (2) with limited exceptions, a general creditor may reach a sum up to the full amount of any distributions that are currently due and payable to the beneficiary even though they are still in the trustee’s hands and separately may reach a sum up to twenty-five percent of any payments that are anticipated to be made to the beneficiary. View "Carmack v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

In 2014, the electorate passed the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (the Act), which reduced penalties for certain theft and drug offenses by amending existing statutes. The Act created the crime of “shoplifting,” which was defined as entering an open commercial establishment during regular business hours with the intent to commit “larceny” of property worth $950 or less. In 2013, Defendant entered a bank to cash a stolen check for less than $950. Defendant pled guilty to felony burglary. Defendant later petitioned for recall of his sentence and resentencing under Cal. Penal Code 1170.18, arguing that his conduct would have constituted misdemeanor shoplifting under the Act. The trial court denied the petition. The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the electorate intended that the shoplifting statute apply to an entry to commit a nonlarcenous theft; and (2) therefore, Defendant’s criminal act now constitutes shoplifting under Cal. Penal Code 459.5, subd. (a), and Defendant may properly petition for misdemeanor resentencing. View "People v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and other crimes. The jury found true special-circumstance allegations. After a penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death.The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for modification of his sentence to life without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no prejudicial error occurred during the pretrial phase of trial or during the guilt phase of trial; (2) substantial evidence supported Defendant’s convictions; (3) no prejudicial error occurred during the penalty phase of trial; and (4) Defendant’s challenges to the constitutionality of California’s death penalty scheme were unavailing. View "People v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of nonforcible lewd conduct. The trial court placed Defendant on probation, ordered him to register as a sex offender, mandated his participation in an approved sex offender management program, and imposed two probation conditions that were the subject of this appeal - (1) that Defendant waive any privilege against self-incrimination and participate in polygraph examinations, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 1203.067(b)(3); and (2) that Defendant waive any psychotherapist-patient privilege, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 1203.067(b)(4). Defendant appealed, arguing that conditioning probation on the waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination and on his participation in polygraph examinations violated his Fifth Amendment rights and, like the waiver of his psychotherapist-patient privilege, was unconstitutionally overbroad. The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the subdivision (b)(4) and (b)(3) conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the probation conditions challenged in this case were not unconstitutional where they enabled those charged with monitoring the probation to obtain the information they need while otherwise safeguarding the probation’s privacy and protecting the probation from compelled self-incrimination. View "People v. Garcia" on Justia Law