Summaries of Every New Published California Civil Case
By Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.
For ADR scheduling contact: Kelsey@adrservices.org
Web: http://montymcintyre.com/mcintyre
Civil Trial Lawyer | ABOTA National Board Member | Ca. attorney since 1980
Phone: (619) 990-4312 | Email: monty@montymcintyre.com
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Civil Code
Leider v. Lewis (2017) _ Cal.5th _ , 2017 WL 2276526: In a taxpayer case alleging elephant abuse at the Los Angeles Zoo, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision concluding that its earlier decision established law of the case that barred defendants’ new argument that the claim for equitable relief was precluded by Civil Code section 3369, and ruling that the “as otherwise provided by law” exception in section 3369 permitted equitable relief in a taxpayer action seeking to restrain “illegal” public expenditures under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. The Supreme Court ruled that this case was governed by the general rule that law of the case does not apply to arguments that might have been but were not presented and resolved on an earlier appeal. The earlier appeal court fully resolved the justiciability issue before it without having to consider whether section 3369’s limitation on equitable relief would apply in plaintiffs’ taxpayer action. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Legislature did not intend to overturn the long-established law governing equitable relief for violations of penal law when it amended Civil Code section 3369 in 1977. Rather, when it added the “except . . . as otherwise provided by law” exception, it maintained the rule that a taxpayer action will not lie to enforce a Penal Code provision. The action was remanded for further proceedings. (May 25, 2017.)
Civil Procedure
Dhillon v. John Muir Health (2017) _ Cal.5th _ , 2017 WL 2276525: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision dismissing defendant’s appeal on the basis that the trial court’s order granting a petition for writ of administrative mandamus and remanding the matter for proceedings before an administrative body was not an appealable final judgment. The action was a writ proceeding by a doctor challenging discipline imposed on him by a hospital. The California Supreme Court ruled that, under the circumstances of this case, the order partially granting the writ petition was an appealable final judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. The order either granted or denied each of the claims, it set aside the discipline imposed against the doctor and remanded with instructions to hold a hearing before the judicial review committee or another appropriate body, the court did not reserve jurisdiction to consider any issues, and, once the writ was issued no issue was left for the court’s future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the writ decree. (May 25, 2017.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Appeals
Chango Coffee, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2302170: The Court of Appeal dismissed defendant’s purported appeal from the trial court’s order denying its renewed petition to compel arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b) because an order denying a renewed motion or application under section 1008(b) is not appealable. (C.A. 2nd, May 26, 2017.)
Arbitration
Chango Coffee, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2302170: See summary above under Appeals.
Heimlich v. Shivji (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2351269: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award but denying defendant’s request for Code of Civil Procedure section 998 costs. The trial court had determined that defendant had failed to make a timely section 998 claim to the arbitrator, but the Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that defendant was not required to present his section 998 cost request to the arbitrator during the arbitration hearing because an offer which is not accepted “cannot be given in evidence upon the trial or arbitration.” (Section 998(b)(2).) In the request to confirm the arbitration award, defendant established that the arbitrator had refused to hear any evidence of plaintiff’s rejection of defendant’s section 998 offer. The Court of Appeal concluded that defendant had timely presented his 998 claim to the arbitrator, the arbitrator should have reached the merits of that claim, and the arbitrator’s refusal to hear evidence of the 998 offer warranted partially vacating the arbitration award. (C.A. 6th, May 31, 2017.)
Civil Code
Guan v. Hu (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2391812: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order (following a bench trial) awarding damages to plaintiff for breach of contract because it found there was evidence showing that defendant had breached the contract. The breach of contract claim had previously been dismissed with prejudice, and only fraud claims were being tried, but the trial court found insufficient evidence of fraud. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had erred when it awarded damages to plaintiff under Civil Code 1692.1 in order to adjust the equities. (C.A. 2nd, June 2, 2017.)
Civil Procedure (Default Judgments, Res Judicata, Summary Adjudication)
Association of Irritated Residents, etc. v. California Department of Conservation (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 1740392: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, to a writ petition challenging the issuance of permits allowing 214 new oil wells, on the basis that res judicata barred the cause of action based on a final judgment entered in a prior action in Alameda County (Alameda action). The Court of Appeal ruled the trial court had erred in sustaining the demurrer and res judicata did not apply because the judgment in the Alameda action was not on the merits but, instead, was due to a finding of mootness following the enactment of a new law known as Senate Bill No. 4.2. (C.A. 5th, filed May 4, 2017, published May 25, 2017.)
California Taxpayers Action Network v. Taber Construction (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2365295: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining demurrers, without leave to amend, to lease-leaseback related claims under Education Code section 17406, but reversed the order sustaining a demurrer to the cause of action alleging that respondent Tabor Construction Company had a conflict of interest. (C.A. 1st, filed May 2, 2017, published May 31, 2017.)
CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2302215: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition challenging the trial court’s order denying the defendant employers’ motion for summary adjudication as to punitive damages. Plaintiffs were seriously injured in a truck-vehicle accident and sued for damages including punitive damages. The employers admitted vicarious liability for the act of the defendant employee. The trial court granted the employee’s motion regarding punitive damages, but it denied the employers’ motion. The Court of Appeal ruled that the admission of vicarious liability did not bar punitive damages. But it found there were no triable issues of fact which could subject the employers to punitive damages because there was no evidence that one employee of defendants, who might have had knowledge of the driver employee’s unfitness, was a managing agent under Civil Code section 3294(b). (C.A. 2nd, May 26, 2017.)
Grappo v. McMills (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2242873: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order vacating a default judgment for $60,000 plus costs of $750 that plaintiff had improperly obtained against a defendant (who plaintiff knew was deceased) and his law firm. The Court of Appeal published the opinion to remind trial courts that they must vigilantly act as a gatekeeper to ensure that only appropriate claims get through. Plaintiff’s default judgment should never have been entered in the first place. (C.A. 1st, May 23, 2017.)
Hart v. Darwish (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2375503: See summary below under Torts.
Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2391817: See summary below under Elder Abuse.
Ogunsalu v. Superior Court (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2350905: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order applying the vexatious litigant prefiling requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 to a self-represented litigant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, who filed a writ of mandate proceeding in the superior court to challenge the denial of his request to continue an administrative proceeding where the vexatious litigant was the respondent in the administrative proceeding. However, because subsequent events rendered effective relief impossible, the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition as moot. (C.A. 4th, May 31, 2017.)
Pacific Bay Recovery v. California Physicians’ Services (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2351115: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend to a complaint alleging that plaintiff, an out-of-network nonemergency provider, was entitled to payment of the usual, customary, and reasonable rate for services plaintiff provided to defendant’s subscriber. The trial court properly ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to payment of more than the 6 days it was paid for substance abuse treatment (instead of the 31 days of treatment that it requested payment for) because plaintiff was not an emergency provider. (C.A. 4th, filed May 19, 2017, published May 31, 2017.)
Thompson v. Ioane (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2288983: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part rulings made by the trial court in an action to quiet title. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, to a cross-complaint by Briana Ioane. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order finding defendants Michael and Shelly Ioane to be vexatious litigants and imposing a pre-filing order against them. The Court of Appeal concluded that Code of Civil Procedure section 391(a)(4) did not apply to Michael and Shelly as defendants, but applied only to the plaintiff in the action. Finally, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for plaintiff because plaintiff did not establish his right to summary judgment on either his quiet title or declaratory judgment causes of action. (C.A. 6th, May 25, 2017.)
Class Actions
Bartoni v. American Medical Response West (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 1476182: In a wage and hour class action case, that also alleged violations under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s denial of the motion for class certification. The Court of Appeal denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal because the PAGA claims remained and it deemed plaintiffs’ appeal to be a petition for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court’s denial of class certification rested in part on an incorrect legal assumption about the nature of rest periods and therefore granted the writ and ordered the trial court to vacate the portion of its order denying class certification for claims regarding the failure to provide off-duty rest periods. (C.A. 1st, filed April 25, 2017, published May 24, 2017.)
Constitution (Usury)
Hardwick v. Wilcox (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2224334: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff/cross-defendant who sued to recover usurious interest and prevent defendant from foreclosing on property securing his loans. The trial court properly ruled that a release provision in a Forbearance Agreement did not constitute a waiver of the usury claim because (1) exempting defendant from the consequences of usury would violate public policy, and (2) the parties did not know or intend that the release would waive a usury claim. The trial court properly entered judgment for plaintiff finding that usurious interest payments made during the relationship offset the principal debt and properly awarded plaintiff $227,235.83 for interest payments made during the two years before the lawsuit was filed. (C.A. 1st, May 22, 2017.)
Contracts (Quantum Meruit, Usury)
Guan v. Hu (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2391812: See summary above under Civil Code.
Sanjiv Goel, M.D., Inc. v. Regal Medical Group, Inc. (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2242981: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, following a court trial, finding that defendant had paid the reasonable value of plaintiff’s emergency cardiac services provided to four patients when it paid plaintiff $9,660.86 instead of the billed amount of $275,383.16. The trial court properly applied Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260 and considered a range of factors to determine the value of the services including fees charged by other emergency providers for the same procedures that plaintiff provided, and the rates that Medicare pays for such procedures. (C.A. 2nd, May 23, 2017.)
Hardwick v. Wilcox (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2224334: See summary above under Constitution.
Damages (Punitive Damages)
CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2302215: See summary above under Civil Procedure.
Education
California Taxpayers Action Network v. Taber Construction (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2365295: See summary above under Civil Procedure.
Elder Abuse
Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2391817: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order sustaining demurrers in an action alleging elder abuse. The trial court was persuaded that no elder abuse claim had been stated primarily because the elderly plaintiffs had transferred their property into a revocable trust and the trust property was allegedly the subject of elder abuse by defendants who sold costly insurance products and were charging expensive commissions. The Court of Appeal agreed with plaintiffs and held they had stated a cause of action for elder abuse by alleging they had suffered damage to their estate plan, loss of the money they felt compelled to transfer to the trust to pay for the insurance coverage, and loss of the money they felt compelled to transfer to the trust to pay defendants’ commissions. (C.A. 1st, June 2, 2017.)
Employment
Bartoni v. American Medical Response West (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 1476182: See summary above under Class Actions.
Equity (Quantum Meruit)
Sanjiv Goel, M.D., Inc. v. Regal Medical Group, Inc. (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2242981: See summary above under Contracts.
Evidence
Sanjiv Goel, M.D., Inc. v. Regal Medical Group, Inc. (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2242981: See summary above under Contracts.
Franchises
Guarantee Fork Lift v. Capacity of Texas (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 1684124: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff was not required to be a licensee under Vehicle Code section 11726 in order to have standing to bring a statutory claim for termination of a vehicle franchise without good cause in violation of Vehicle Code sections 11713.3, 3060, 3061 and 3066.1. (C.A. 5th, filed May 2, 2017, published May 24, 2017.)
Government (Elections, Land Use, Redevelopment Agencies, Taxation)
City and County of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2288936: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition seeking to compel state universities that operate parking lots in the city to collect city taxes from parking users and remit them to San Francisco. The Court of Appeal ruled that the California Constitution’s “home-rule provision”—which grants charter cities broad powers, including the power to tax—does not create an exception to the long-recognized doctrine that exempts state entities from local regulation when they are performing governmental functions. (C.A. 1st, May 25, 2017.)
City of Galt v. Cohen (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2391690: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order that properly denied a writ petition challenging the determination of the California Department of Finance that a cooperative agreement entered into by petitioner and its former redevelopment agency was unenforceable under the California law dissolving all redevelopment agencies. (C.A. 3rd, June 2, 2017.)
City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2334024: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting a writ petition for petitioner that removed from the June 2016 ballot a referendum by Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition that challenged petitioner’s ordinance changing the zoning for a parcel owned by River Park Hospitality. The Court of Appeal disagreed with deBottari v. City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204 and held that a referendum petition challenging an ordinance that attempts to make the zoning for a parcel consistent with the parcel’s general plan land use designation is not invalid if the legislative body remains free to select another consistent zoning for the parcel should the referendum result in the rejection of the legislative body’s first choice of consistent zoning. (C.A. 6th, May 30, 2017.)
Coastal Environmental Rights v. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2365316: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that it had properly denied a writ petition seeking to challenge respondent’s approval of a general permit for public displays of fireworks over the San Diego Region’s surface waters. (C.A. 4th, filed May 8, 2017, published May 31, 2017.)
Kutzke v. City of San Diego (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2131412: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting a mandamus judgment reversing defendant’s decision to deny a proposed project to subdivide lots and build new residences. The Court of Appeal found there was substantial evidence to support defendant’s findings that the project’s mitigated negative declaration was inadequate, particularly as to the project’s potential impacts on geology, land use, and public safety; the project was inconsistent with the applicable community plan; and requested deviations from applicable development regulations were inappropriate for the project’s location and would not result in a more desirable project. (C.A. 4th, filed May 17, 2017, published May 23, 2017.)
POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Board (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2350103: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order discharging a writ and remanded for further proceedings under a modified writ. The modifications directed the Air Resources Board (ARB) to address nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from biodiesel in a manner that complied with California Environmental Quality Act, including the use of a proper baseline. The term “project” in the original write included the whole of ARB’s activity in promulgating and enforcing the regulations originally adopted in 2009 and the replacement regulations adopted in 2015 in response to the writ of mandate issued pursuant to POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681. ARB’s view that the “project” included only the regulations adopted in 2015 was wrong, and it incorrectly chose 2014 NOx emissions as the baseline. (C.A. 5th, May 30, 2017.)
Insurance
CA FAIR Plan Association v. Garnes (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2303165: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant in a case arising from fire damage to a home insured under a $425,000 policy issued by defendant, California’s insurer of last resort. The trial court ruled that, under the insurance policy and the Insurance Code, defendant could pay plaintiff the lesser of the amount to repair the house (more than $350,000) or the fair market value of the house, which at the time of the fire was $75,000. The Court of Appeal disagreed and ruled that, for a partial loss, Insurance Code section 2051, coupled with sections 2070 and 2071, set a minimum standard of coverage that required defendant to indemnify plaintiff for the actual cost of the repair to her home, minus depreciation, even if this amount exceeded the fair market value of the house. (C.A. 1st, May 26, 2017.)
Punitive Damages
CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2302215: See summary above under Civil Procedure.
Real Property (CEQA, Land Use)
Association of Irritated Residents, etc. v. California Department of Conservation (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 1740392: See summary above under Civil Procedure.
Friends of Outlet Creek v. Mendocino County (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 1090484: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend to a writ challenging an Authority to Construct authorizing asphalt production at the site of an aggregate operation on the basis that it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Court of Appeal reversed because there is established precedent allowing CEQA claims against air quality management districts. The Court of Appeal, however, observed that the only action that could be challenged was the issuance of the Authority to Construct, and the only possible relief from the lawsuit was invalidation of the Authority to Construct. (C.A. 1st, filed March 23, 2017, published May 25, 2017.)
Kutzke v. City of San Diego (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2131412: See summary above under Government. Thompson v. Ioane (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2288983: See summary above under Civil Procedure.
Taxes
City and County of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2288936: See summary above under Government.
Torts (Malicious Prosecution)
Hart v. Darwish (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2375503: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in a malicious prosecution case because the trial court in the underlying unlawful detainer action had denied plaintiffs’ (the unlawful detainer defendants) motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.81. The Court of Appeal ruled that the unlawful detainer court’s denial of the motion for judgment mandated a finding that defendants had probable cause to bring the unlawful detainer lawsuit. (C.A. 2nd, June 1, 2017.)
Vehicle Code
Guarantee Fork Lift v. Capacity of Texas (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 1684124: See summary above under Franchises.
Water
Orange County Water District v. Alcoa Global Fasteners (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2376596: The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment (following a bench trial) in part as to plaintiff’s cause of action against Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (Northrop) under the Orange County Water District Act (OCWD Act; West’s Ann. Water Code App. (2016 ed.) ch. 40) and the declaration finding no liability in favor of Northrop, but affirmed the judgment finding that plaintiff should take nothing in all other respects. Because plaintiff did not satisfy one of the essential elements under the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substances Account Act (HSAA; Health & Safety Code, section 25300 et seq.) as to any defendant, the HSAA claims against all defendants failed. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court misinterpreted elements of plaintiff’s claim under the OCWD Act, which are similar but not identical to the elements of an HSAA claim, and these errors prejudiced the plaintiff as to Northrop but not as to the other defendants. (C.A. 4th, June 1, 2017.)
Orange County Water District v. MAG Aerospace Industries (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 2375507: The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for defendant following a bench trial in a case alleging claims under the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substances Account Act (HSAA; Health & Safety Code, section 25300 et seq.) and the Orange County Water District Act (OCWD Act; West’s Ann. Water Code App. (2016 ed.) ch. 40). Although the trial court may have used an incorrect causation standard under the HSAA, any such error was harmless in light of the trial court’s factual findings. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 by holding a bench trial on the plaintiff’s equitable claims before scheduling a jury trial on plaintiff’s legal claims. (C.A. 4th, June 1, 2017.)
Copyright © 2017 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
