Click here to get McIntyre’s Civil Alert™ by email.
My organized, succinct summaries of noteworthy new California civil cases will keep you current with new legal developments. I look forward to helping you resolve cases or issues as a mediator, arbitrator or referee.
Best Regards,
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee
To schedule, call Genevieve Kenizwald at (619) 233-1323, or email gen@adrservices.org.
Areas: Business | Class Action | Construction | Employment | Insurance | Medical Malpractice
Probate | Professional Liability | Real Property | Torts | Trusts and Estates
Locations: San Diego | Irvine | Los Angeles | San Francisco
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Employment (Attorney Fees, Title VII Employment Discrimination)
CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission _ U.S. _ (2016), 2016 WL 2903425: The United States Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluding that a Title VII employment discrimination defendant is a prevailing party entitled to attorney fees only if it obtains a ruling on the merits. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a favorable ruling on the merits is not a necessary predicate to find that a defendant has prevailed and is entitled to attorney fees. (May 19, 2016.)
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Torts (Elder Abuse)
Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) _ Cal.4th _ : The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s ruling reversing the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. The California Supreme Court ruled that the definition of neglect (see Welfare & Institutions Code section 15610.57) under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Elder Abuse Act, Welfare & Institutions Code section 15600 et seq.) does not apply to a health care provider delivering care on an outpatient basis who fails to refer an elder patient to a specialist unless the defendant had a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship, involving ongoing responsibility for one or more basic needs, with the elder patient. It is the nature of the elder or dependent adult’s relationship with the defendant – not the defendant’s professional standing – that makes the defendant potentially liable for neglect. Because the defendants did not have a caretaking or custodial relationship with the decedent, plaintiffs could not adequately allege neglect under the Elder Abuse Act. (May 19, 2016.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Civil Procedure (Demurrer, Doe Defendants, Statute of Limitations)
Brown v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 2726229: See summary below under Real Estate.
Daza v. Los Angeles Community College District (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 2620645: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. A student sued defendant and plaintiff, a guidance counselor employed by defendant, alleging plaintiff sexually assaulted her when she went to his office for counseling services. Defendant refused to defend plaintiff, so he paid for his own defense and filed a cross-complaint denying the allegations of sexual assault and seeking indemnity and reimbursement for his defense. Defendant settled the main lawsuit without admitting liability and without a factual determination of whether plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment, and the student dismissed all her claims with prejudice. Defendant then demurred to plaintiff’s cross-complaint, arguing the student’s allegations of sexual assault in the main lawsuit fell outside the scope of plaintiff’s employment as a matter of law. While the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the sexual assault alleged in the main lawsuit fell outside the scope of plaintiff’s employment as a matter of law, under a proper interpretation of Government Code section 996.4, the determination of whether an employee acted within the scope of employment is factual and cannot be limited to the third party’s allegations in the underlying lawsuit when the employee denies those allegations and the employee’s version of events would demonstrate acts within the scope of employment. (C.A. 2nd, May 6, 2016.)
Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc. (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 2864800: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant on the basis that the action was barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 340.4. The Court of Appeal agreed that the claim alleging that plaintiff’s prenatal exposure to toxic substances caused her to suffer birth defects and permanent injuries. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that section 340.4 was the applicable statute of limitations. Because section 340.4 is not tolled during plaintiff’s minority, the complaint was untimely when filed. (C.A. 2nd, May 13, 2016.)
McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy and Bass, LLP (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ : The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting a motion to quash by the defendant law firm, after plaintiff amended his petition to name the defendant law firm as a doe defendant. The Court of Appeal found that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that, when plaintiff filed the original petition, he was not ignorant of the facts on which his claims against the defendant law firm were based, and the firm therefore could not be named as a doe defendant under Code of Civil Procedure 474. (C.A. 1st, May 10, 2016.)
Employment
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 2732128: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend on the basis that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Labor Code section 1164.9 limited all judicial review of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board’s (Board) rulings to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court in cases where the mandatory mediation and conciliation process is followed. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that section 1164.9 was unconstitutional and did not preclude the trial court from exercising jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal also remanded to the trial court the determination of whether the Board’s no-public-access policy violated a right of public access to civil proceedings protected under the federal or state Constitution, or both. (C.A. 5th, May 9, 2016.)
Government (Indemnity)
Daza v. Los Angeles Community College District (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 2620645: see summary above under Civil Procedure.
Probate (Conservatorship)
Conservatorship of Bower (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1554844: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order dividing a married couple’s community property under Probate Code section 3089. The probate court erroneously proceeded on the premise that section 3089 is triggered by noncompliance with orders to pay professional fees directly to the conservator in a lump sum, rather than refusal to comply with an order to support the conservatee spouse. The order was reversed and remanded for application of the proper standard to the facts in question. (C.A. 4th, filed April 14, 2016, published May 16, 2016.)
Real Property (CEQA, Wrongful Foreclosure)
Brown v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 2726229: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend to a complaint seeking to stop a foreclosure. The complaint was the third lawsuit filed by plaintiff. One of the grounds for the trial court’s order was its determination that plaintiff’s contention that defendants lacked authority to enforce the deed of trust was contradicted by matters subject to judicial notice. Plaintiff, however, failed to present any reasoned argument challenging that determination, so she forfeited any claim that the trial court erred. The Court of Appeal also found the trial court’s order was correct, because it concluded that an FDIC to Chase purchase and assumption agreement contradicted the allegations that plaintiff relied upon to support her theory that defendant California Reconveyance Company lacked authority to foreclose. Finally, plaintiff failed to address how she could amend her complaint to assert a valid cause of action and therefore forfeited any argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. (CA. 1st, May 9, 2016.)
Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (Cadiz, Inc.) (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 2742824: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition challenging a water project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Santa Margarita Water District was properly named as the lead agency. The project was consistent with the Environmental Impact Report’s (EIR) purpose and objectives because it will conserve water otherwise lost to brine and evaporation, and will improve water supplies throughout many areas of the State of California. The EIR set a definite length of time during which pumping under the project could occur, and the additional time permitted for pumping if contingencies require that the pumping be extended did not alter the total amount of water that may be withdrawn. Finally, the EIR and related documents do not permit withdrawal of water in excess of the amounts specified in the EIR. (C.A. 4th, May 10, 2016.)
Delaware Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (Santa Margarita Water District) (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 2742702: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition challenging a water project. An environmental impact report (EIR) was not required for a memorandum of understanding signed by the County of San Bernardino (County) and other entities because the memorandum of understanding was not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Court of Appeal also found that the memorandum of understanding did not violate either the County’s relevant groundwater management ordinance or common law. (C.A. 4th, May 10, 2016.)
People for Proper Planning v. City of Palm Springs (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1633062: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition challenging defendant’s approval of an Amendment to the City’s General Plan (Amendment) removing the minimum density requirements for each residential development. The Court of Appeal concluded the defendant could not rely on a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), instead it must proceed to the next step of the analysis and conduct an initial threshold study to see if the proposed Amendment would have a significant impact upon the environment to determine whether a negative declaration may be issued. (C.A. 4th, filed April 22, 2016, published May 20, 2016.)
Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank National Association (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ : The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal concluded that a homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so—by those facts alone—sustains prejudice or harm sufficient to constitute a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. When a non-debtholder forecloses, a homeowner is harmed by losing her home to an entity with no legal right to take it. Under those circumstances, the void assignment is the proximate cause of actual injury and all that is required to be alleged to satisfy the element of prejudice or harm in a wrongful foreclosure cause of action. (C.A. 4th, May 18, 2016.)
Torts
Daza v. Los Angeles Community College District (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 2620645: see summary above under Civil Procedure.
Hetzel v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1745563: Finding the decision of the Second Appellate District in Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1133 to be directly on point and persuasive, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding a duty to warn. Because virtually all brake linings during the relevant time period contained asbestos which resulted in defendant’s machines being used 90 to 95 percent of the time to grind brakes producing asbestos dust, the intended use of the product inevitably created a hazardous situation, and a jury could reasonably conclude the inevitable use of defendant’s products would expose a worker like plaintiff to asbestos dust absent safety protection or adequate warning. (C.A. 1st, filed April 28, 2016, published May 17, 2016.)
Jimenez v. Roseville City School District (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ : The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff was injured in an unsupervised middle school classroom where he attempted to do a flip while break dancing. School rules were violated in two ways: first, students had been ordered not to perform flips; second, the teacher who allowed the students to use his classroom for dancing violated school policy by leaving them unsupervised. The Court of Appeal concluded there were two viable theories of liability that could go to the jury: negligent supervision, and defendant’s conduct increased the inherent risks of break dancing. (C.A. 3rd, May 19, 2016.)
Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc. (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 2864800: See summary above under Civil Procedure.
See Ca. opinions at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions.htm
Copyright © 2016 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. All Rights Reserved
