California Case Summaries: Free™
Look Smart & Save Time™
Five New Published California Civil Cases
March 2019
By Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.
Civil Trial Lawyer | National ABOTA Board Member | Ca. Attorney since 1980
For ADR Services, Inc. scheduling, contact my case manager Christopher Schuster Phone: (619) 233-1323. Email: christopher@adrservices.com
Monty’s cell: (619) 990-4312. Monty’s email: monty@montymcintyre.com
Our Other Publications
California Case Summaries: Monthly™: Short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil and family law decision published each month for $24.99 per month per attorney. Discounted multi-user options are also available. Warning: 57 new California civil and family law cases were published in March 2019. To subscribe today, and easily keep up with every new case in your practice areas, click here.
California Case Summaries: Quarterly™: Short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil and family law decision published each quarter for $99.99 per quarter per attorney. Discounted multi-user options are also available. To get the right issue for you or your organization, click here.
California Case Summaries: Annual 2018™: Short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil and family law decision published each year for $499.99 per year per attorney. Discounted multi-user options are also available. To get the right issue for you or your organization, click here.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Employment
Cal Fire Local 2881 v. Cal. Pub. Employees’ Retirement System (2019) _ Cal.5th _ , 2019 WL 1008413: The California Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the trial court that concluded that the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013’s (PEPRA; Stats. 2012, ch. 296, § 15; see Government Code, sections 7222 et seq.) elimination of the opportunity to purchase additional retirement service (ARS) credit did not violate the Constitution. The California Supreme Court ruled that the opportunity to purchase ARS credit was not a right protected by the contract clause. There was no indication in the statute conferring the opportunity to purchase ARS credit that the Legislature intended to create contractual rights. Unlike core pension rights, the opportunity to purchase ARS credit was not granted to public employees as deferred compensation for their work, and the Court found no other basis for concluding that the opportunity to purchase ARS credit was protected by the contract clause. In the absence of constitutional protection, the opportunity to purchase ARS credit could be altered or eliminated at the discretion of the Legislature. (March 4, 2019.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Arbitration
Bravo v. RADC Enterprises, Inc. (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1417852: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order regarding defendants motion to compel arbitration. The trial court properly severed and stayed the PAGA claims. The trial court properly compelled arbitration on three of plaintiff’s individual claims. The Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the trial court order denying the motion to compel as to plaintiff’s remaining six individual claims by plaintiff on the basis that California Labor Code section 229 prohibited arbitration of those wage claims. The Court of Appeal ruled that the California choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement required that all of plaintiff’s individual claims be arbitrated. (C.A. 2nd, March 29, 2019.)
Employment
Su v. Stephen S. Wise Temple (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1091112: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff’s action for wage and hour law violations regarding preschool teachers employed by defendant was barred by the “ministerial exception.” The Court of Appeal ruled that while defendant’s preschool curriculum had both secular and religious content, its teachers were not required to have any formal Jewish education, to be knowledgeable about Jewish belief and practice, or to adhere to defendant’s theology. Moreover, defendant did not refer to its teachers as “ministers” or the equivalent, nor did the teachers refer to themselves as such. Accordingly, the teachers were not “ministers” for purposes of the ministerial exception. (C.A. 2nd, March 8, 2019.)
Partnerships
Jarvis v. Jarvis (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1254013: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting a motion to disqualify lawyer William Roscoe, III, who had been hired by one partner to represent the partnership in an action brought by the other partner for partition by sale of a two-acre parcel owned by the partnership. Each partner owned a 50 percent interest in the partnership, and they could not agree on what to do about the two-acre parcel. The trial court properly granted the motion to disqualify because there was not a majority of partners in this two-partner business that agreed on hiring an attorney for the partnership. (C.A. 6th, March 19, 2019.)
Torts
Grossman v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1349470: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendant school district. Plaintiff sued for serious injuries suffered when he fell off a 27-foot-tall inflatable slide while attending a carnival held at a school campus owned by the school district. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Education Code allocates liability for negligence between school districts and entities allowed to use school district grounds. A school district is “liable for an injury resulting from the negligence of the school district in the ownership and maintenance of the school facilities or grounds.” (Education Code, section 38134(i)(1).) An “entity using the school facilities or grounds … is liable for an injury resulting from the negligence of that entity during the use of the school facilities or grounds.” (Ibid.) Summary judgment was proper because plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the alleged negligence of the booster group and others during the use of the school grounds, not from the school district’s ownership and maintenance of the grounds. (C.A. 2nd, March 25, 2019.)
Copyright © 2019 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved