I now offer a new product called California Case Summaries Civil Update: 2017™. It has my short, organized summaries of every California civil case published in 2017, with the official case citations. To purchase the single-user issue today for $149.99, click here. To purchase the law firm multi-user issue (for one office location) today for $299.99, click here.
California Case Summaries Civil™
Summaries of Every New Published California Civil Case
By Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.
Civil Trial Lawyer | ABOTA National Board Member | Ca. attorney since 1980
For scheduling, contact my ADR Services case manager Christopher Schuster
Phone: (619) 233-1323 Email: Christopher@adrservices.com
Web: http://montymcintyre.com/mcintyre
Monty’s Cell: (619) 990-4312 Monty’s Email: monty@montymcintyre.com
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Civil Procedure (Anti-SLAPP)
Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) _ Cal.5th _ , 2018 WL 1415578: The California Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and ruled that anti-SLAPP motions to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 must be filed within 60 days of service of the earliest complaint that contains the cause of action being attacked, subject to the trial court’s discretion under section 425.16(f) to permit a late filing. (March 22, 2018.)
Torts
The Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court (2018) _ Cal.5th _ , 2018 WL 1415703: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s order granting a writ petition because the Court of Appeal found that petitioner (the defendant university in the underlying action) did not owe a duty to the plaintiff in the underlying action, a student who was stabbed by a fellow student who experienced auditory hallucinations and believed that other students were criticizing him. Before the stabbing, school administrators had learned of the delusions and attempted to provide mental health treatment. The California Supreme Court ruled that universities and colleges have a special relationship with their students and owe students a duty to protect them from foreseeable violence during curricular activities. (March 22, 2018.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Arbitration
Saheli v. White Memorial Medical Center (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1312501: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims under the Ralph Act (Civil Code section 51.7) and the Bane Act (Civil Code section 52.1). The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the arbitration agreement. It also ruled that the Ralph Act’s and Bane Act’s special requirements for arbitration agreements are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. (C.A. 2nd, March 14, 2018.)
Attorney Fees
Eleanor Licensing LLC v. Classic Recreations LLC (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1407106: See summary below under Contracts.
Civil Procedure
AO Alpha-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1250637: The Court of Appeal reversed the trail court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that service of process in Russian proceedings was ineffective. Plaintiff sued under the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Act (Recognition Act; Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1713–1725) to recognize a Russian judgment against defendant. The Court of Appeal ruled that due process did not require actual notice, it required only a method of service “reasonably calculated” to impart actual notice under the circumstances of the case, and service by registered mail to the address defendant designated in the surety agreement met that standard. Because defendant failed to meet his burden to establish a basis for nonrecognition on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of notice, or incompatibility with due process, the presumption in favor of recognition applied, and the Russian judgment was entitled to recognition. (C.A. 4th, March 12, 2018.)
Austin v. Medicis (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1407120: See summary below under Legal Malpractice. Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified School District v. Superior Court (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1008058: See summary below under Torts.
Fox v. Superior Court (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1392333: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition and reversed the trial court’s order denying a motion for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a). Plaintiff, who filed an action for personal injuries due to asbestos exposure, sought trial preference because she suffered from stage IV lung cancer and various related ailments. The trial court erred in requiring plaintiffs to support the motion by clear and convincing proof, which is required for motions seeking discretionary grants of preference under section 36(d), but does not apply to motions seeking mandatory preference under section 36(a). The trial court was ordered to set the trial within 120 days. (C.A. 1st, March 20, 2018.)
MMM Holdings, Inc. v. Reich (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1250482: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Plaintiffs sued defendant, the attorney who represented their adversary in a whistleblower qui tam action filed against plaintiffs in the United States District Court, alleging causes of action for claim and delivery, conversion, civil theft, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition. Plaintiffs alleged defendant received, wrongfully possessed, and refused to turn over, some 26,000 electronically stored documents his client took with him in 2010 when he was terminated by plaintiffs for his vocal opposition to what he perceived as plaintiffs’ fraudulent practices. The trial court properly granted the motion on the basis that plaintiffs claims against defendant involved defendant’s petitioning activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, and plaintiffs did not show a probability they would prevail on any of their claims. (C.A. 4th, March 12, 2018.)
Ponce v. Wells Fargo Bank (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1281681: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order imposing both terminating and monetary sanctions against plaintiffs and their attorneys under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. The trial court improperly concluded that plaintiffs’ complaint was presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The Court of Appeal ruled that a nonfrivolous argument could be made that defendant Wells Fargo was not a “predecessor in interest” within the meaning of a stipulation signed by plaintiffs in favor of another lender to hold a writ in exchange for $10,000 and the right to remain in possession of the real property through May 2013. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the nonfrivolous nature of the claims of plaintiffs necessarily established their good faith and defeated the statutory requirement that the claims were pursued for an improper purpose. (C.A. 3rd, March 13, 2018.)
Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1357461: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing a complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 and 418.10. Plaintiff, a Taiwanese company, sued defendant, a Japanese company, for breach of a contract to manufacture and sell cellular phones. The parties agreed to a forum selection clause mandating that any dispute be resolved in a California court under California law. However, nothing in the creation, performance, or alleged breach of the contract had any connection to California. The trial court properly dismissed the action because suitable alternative forums existed, and California had no public interest in burdening its courts with an action lacking any identifiable connection to the state. (C.A. 2nd, March 16, 2018.)
Consumer Protection
Davidson v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1281873: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, to a complaint alleging violations by mortgage servicers of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Rosenthal Act; Civil Code, section 1788 et seq.). The Court of Appeal ruled that, to the extent that the statutory language is ambiguous, the statute should be construed broadly in favor of protecting the public, and the fact that the Rosenthal Act’s definitional language is sufficiently broad to include mortgage lenders and/or mortgage servicers within its purview, mortgage lenders and mortgage servicers can be “debt collectors” under the Rosenthal Act. (C.A. 4th, March 13, 2018.)
Construction
West Coast Air Conditioning Co. v. Cal. Dept. of Corr. & Rehab. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1008031: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order awarding petitioner damages of $250,000 for its public works bid preparation costs. Petitioner successfully challenged respondent’s award of a public works contract to another contractor. The trial court issued an injunction preventing the contractor from doing further work, but it refused to command respondent to award the contact to petitioner despite the trial court’s finding in a previous order that petitioner should have been awarded the contract. The Court of Appeal ruled that the issuance of a permanent injunction in favor of petitioner, without either an award of the public works contract to petitioner or an award of damages equal to petitioner’s bid preparation costs, would result in an inadequate remedy to petitioner. The trial court properly exercised its broad equitable authority when it awarded petitioner its bid preparation costs in the stipulated sum of $250,000 under a promissory estoppel theory. (C.A. 4th, filed February 22, 2018, published March 19, 2018.)
Contracts
Eleanor Licensing LLC v. Classic Recreations LLC (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1407106: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s judgment following a bench trial in an action by plaintiffs to recover possession of, and legal title to, a restored 1967 or 1968 Fastback Ford Mustang fitted and detailed to replicate in appearance the car used in the 2000 remake of the movie Gone in 60 Seconds. (Eleanor.) The Court of Appeal ruled that the contract based claims were barred by the statute of limitations, but the claims for return of personal property and quiet title were timely filed. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s alter ego finding against defendants Jason Engel and Tony Engel because it was not supported by substantial evidence, and also ruled that neither one of these defendants were liable for attorney fees. Jason Engel was properly named as a defendant in the quiet title and return of personal property claims, and Tony Engel was properly named as a defendant in the quiet title claim. The judgment, requiring the transfer of the legal title of Eleanor to plaintiffs, awarding damages of $6,657.75 and awarding attorney fees of $176,050 was otherwise affirmed. (C.A. 2nd, March 21, 2018.)
Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1357461: See summary above under Code of Civil Procedure.
Education
Hayes v. Temecula Valley Unified School District (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1078591: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition seeking to overturn respondent’s decision to remove petitioner as a middle school principal and reassign her to a teaching position for the 2015-2016 school year under its statutory authority to reassign a school principal without cause. (Education Code, section 44951.) The Court of Appeal ruled that notice of the no-cause reassignment was timely because the governing school board was not required to authorize the sending of the notice by the school superintendent before the statutory deadline of March 15 in section 44951. The Court of Appeal found that petitioner’s other contentions on appeal lacked merit based upon the factual record before it. (C.A. 4th, filed February 28, 2018, published March 23, 2018.)
Employment
Corley v. San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1324820: The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff, following a jury trial, where the jury found that plaintiff’s age was a substantial motivating reason for the termination of his employment and awarded damages of $597,629, and the trial court later entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff that also awarded $853,443 in attorney fees and $40,733 in costs. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury pursuant to Government Code section 3254(c), and it rejected all other arguments by defendant on appeal. (C.A. 4th, March 15, 2018.)
Serrano v. Aerotek, Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1223989: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Aerotek, Inc., which had placed plaintiff as a temporary employee with its client, defendant Bay Bread, LLC. Plaintiff filed a putative class action against both defendants for failure to provide meal periods and other claims. The Court of Appeal held that the undisputed evidence established Aerotek had satisfied its obligation to provide meal periods under Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate Aerotek was vicariously liable for any meal period violations committed by Bay Bread. Because plaintiff agreed on appeal that her derivative claims for waiting time penalties, unfair business practices and PAGA penalties would “rise or fall” depending upon the meal period claim, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of these derivative claims. (C.A. 1st, filed March 9, 2018, published March 23, 2018.)
Environment
Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1081213: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition seeking to overturn respondent’s approval of a 68-unit, mixed-use, infill project located a quarter-mile from the Covina Metrolink commuter rail station. The Court of Appeal ruled that Public Resources Code, section 21099(d)(1), which took effect three months before the project was approved, exempted the project’s parking impacts from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA; Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.) The Court of Appeal also rejected petitioner’s contentions that respondent’s approval of the project violated the Subdivision Map Act. (C.A. 2nd, filed February 28, 2018, published March 22, 2018.)
Equity
Eleanor Licensing LLC v. Classic Recreations LLC (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1407106: See summary above under Contracts.
Government
Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified School District v. Superior Court (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1008058: See summary below under Torts.
Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1081213: See summary above under Environment.
Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1324601: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition challenging the approval by respondent of the construction by Verizon Wireless of a wireless telecommunications facility (the Project) in a dedicated park called Ridgewood Neighborhood Park. Under San Diego City Charter section 55, respondent had control and management of dedicated parks and had the discretion to determine whether a particular park use would change the use or purpose and require a public vote. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Project did not constitute a changed use or purpose that required voter approval. It also ruled that the Project qualified as a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.). (C.A. 4th, March 15, 2018.)
- Arthur Properties, II, LLC v. City of San Jose (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1373644: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition seeking to overturn the decision of respondents ordering a medical marijuana collective to close because it was not an authorized use of the subject property. The trial court properly denied the writ petition. (C.A. 6th, March 19, 2018.)
West Coast Air Conditioning Co. v. Cal. Dept. of Corr. & Rehab. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1008031: See summary above under Construction.
Joint Ventures
Eng v. Brown (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1417426: See summary below under Partnerships.
Judges
McGlynn v. State of California (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1391909: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, to petitioners writ of mandate seeking to compel the State of California, the Judicial Council, the CalPERS Board of Administration, and the state’s Comptroller (collectively respondents) to provide elected petitioner judges with the benefits in effect under Judges’ Retirement System II (JRS II; Government Code, section 75500 et seq.) when they were elected in 2012, rather than the modified benefits of JRS II after the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) became effective on January 1, 2013, before petitioners assumed their judicial offices on January 7, 2013. The Court of Appeal ruled that the judges obtained a vested right to retirement benefits only upon taking office, after PEPRA went into effect. It also ruled that PEPRA’s provisions pertaining to fluctuating pension contributions do not violate the nondiminution clause of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. III, section 4), nor do they impermissibly delegate legislative authority over judicial compensation (Cal. Const., art. VI, section 19). (C.A. 1st, March 20, 2018.)
Land Use
Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1324601: See summary above under Government.
Legal Malpractice
Austin v. Medicis (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1407120: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, to a complaint alleging several causes of action against defendant, a criminal defense attorney, alleging that defendant did not provide the full range of professional services for which he was paid. In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeal ruled that a person is only “imprisoned on a criminal charge” so as to toll the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 352.1 if they are serving a term of imprisonment in state prison. There was no tolling of the statute of limitations while plaintiff was incarcerated in county jail. The trial court properly sustained the demurrer. The one-year statute of limitations for claims of attorney malpractice (Code of Civil Procedure, section 340.6) applied to all causes of action other than actual fraud. Because plaintiff’s claims accrued on September 22, 2009, the date he learned defendant had abandoned him, the complaint was untimely when it was filed on September 11, 2013. Moreover, plaintiff failed to state sufficient facts to support the causes of action for fraud or to allege those facts with the required specificity. (C.A. 2nd, March 21, 2018.)
Partnerships
Eng v. Brown (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1417426: The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for defendants, following a jury trial, where plaintiff alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to him as purported partners or joint venturers in the ownership and operation of the Tin Fish Gaslamp, a seafood restaurant in San Diego. The jury found that the parties entered into a partnership or joint venture, but it was terminated when they formed a corporation, B.L.E. Fish, Inc., to purchase and operate the restaurant. As a result, plaintiff’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on a partnership or joint venture was unsupportable. The Court of Appeal rejected each of plaintiff’s numerous claims of error by the trial court during the jury trial. (C.A. 4th, March 22, 2018.)
Physicians
Saheli v. White Memorial Medical Center (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1312501: See summary above under Arbitration.
Real Property
Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1324601: See summary above under Government.
- Arthur Properties, II, LLC v. City of San Jose (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1373644: See summary above under Government.
Petrolink, Inc. v. Lantel Enterprises (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1324478: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s judgment following a bench trial. The portion of the judgment granting specific performance ordering defendant to sell the property to plaintiff for $889,854.00 was affirmed. The Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the judgment denying plaintiff’s request for a rent offset after the option to purchase was exercised and ordered the trial court to undertake an accounting between the parties to take into account the delay in performance of the contract and place both parties in the positions in which they would have been had the contract been timely performed. (C.A. 4th, March 15, 2018.)
Torts
Arvizu v. City of Pasadena (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1061572: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in an action for serious personal injuries. Plaintiff sued defendant after he fell over a retaining wall located beside a recreational trail in defendant’s Arroyo Seco Natural Park. Plaintiff entered the Park in the dark, pre-dawn hours, while it was closed, in order to go “ghost hunting” with a group of friends. While taking a shortcut to reach the trail, he lost his footing, careened across the trail, and fell over the wall. The trial court properly ruled that plaintiff’s action was barred by the trail immunity under Government Code, section 831.4(b). (C.A. 2nd, filed February 27, 2018, published March 23, 2018.)
Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified School District v. Superior Court (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1008058: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition directing the trial court to reverse its order overruling defendants/petetitioners’ demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint for childhood sexual abuse under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1. Ruling on a question of first impression, the Court of Appeal held that, while Government Code section 905 exempted such claims from the claim presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act (Government Code, section 810, et seq.), section 935 authorized local public entities to impose their own claim presentation requirements, which petitioners did. Because plaintiff failed to allege timely compliance with petitioners’ claim presentation requirement, or an excuse for failure to comply, petitioners’ demurrers to the first amended complaint should have been sustained. (C.A. 5th, filed February 22, 2018, published March 16, 2018.)
Copyright © 2018 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
