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, referee or special master.
Best Regards,
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. | ADR Services, Inc.
Mediator, Arbitrator, Referee & Special Master
Relentless Optimist® | Rapid, Reasonable Resolution™
To schedule, call Genevieve Kenizwald at (619) 233-1323, or email gen@adrservices.org.
Areas: Business | Class Action | Construction | Employment | Insurance | Medical Malpractice | Professional Liability | Real Property | Torts
Locations: San Diego | Irvine | San Bernardino/Riverside | Los Angeles | Silicon Valley | San Francisco
Click here to get McIntyre’s Civil Alert by email.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
Arbitration
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia _ U.S. _ (2015), 2015 WL 8546242: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the California Court of Appeal that had concluded that a class action waiver was unenforceable under California law. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California’s interpretation of the phrase “law of your state” did not place arbitration contracts on equal footing with all other contracts and did not give due regard to the federal policy favoring arbitration. The Court of Appeal’s interpretation was therefore pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. (December 14, 2015.)
Class Actions
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia _ U.S. _ (2015), 2015 WL 8546242: See summary above under Arbitration.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Environment (CEQA)
California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) _ Cal.4th _ : The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment ordering the trial court to vacate a writ of mandate it had granted in favor of petitioner. The California Supreme Court ruled that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents. CEQA does mandate an analysis of how a project might exacerbate existing environmental hazards. CEQA also requires such an analysis where the project in question falls into certain specific statutory categories governing school, airport, and certain housing projects under Public Resources Code sections 21151.8, 21096, 21159.21, 21159.22, 21159.23, 21159.24, and 21155.1. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that Guidelines section 15126.2(a) is valid only in part. Because the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the writ petition did not address certain potentially important arguments for and against such relief in light of CEQA’s requirements as interpreted in this decision, the Court of Appeal’s judgment was reversed and remanded to address these issues. (December 17, 2015.)
Real Property (CEQA)
California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) _ Cal.4th _ : See summary above under Environment.
Torts (Design Immunity)
Hampton v. County of San Diego (2015) _ Cal.4th _ : The California Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment of the trial court that had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court concluded that the discretionary approval element of design immunity, under Government Code section 830.6, does not include the question of whether the employee who approved the plans was aware of design standards or was aware that the design deviated from the design standards. The issue of the adequacy of the deliberative process with respect to design standards may be considered in connection with the court’s determination of whether there is substantial evidence that the design was reasonable. In addition, the discretionary approval element does not require the entity to demonstrate, in its prima facie case, that the employee who had authority to and did approve the plans also had authority to disregard applicable design standards. The California Supreme Court disapproved Levin v. State of California (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 410 and Hernandez v. Department of Transportation (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 376, to the extent they were inconsistent with the Court’s opinion. (December 10, 2015.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Arbitration
Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 8959445: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award. The Court of Appeal concluded that DLA Piper, after Gray Cary Ware & Friedenrich had merged into DLA Piper, had standing to enforce an arbitration agreement in an offer letter that plaintiff had accepted from Gray Cary Ware & Friedenrich several years before the law firms merged. The Court of Appeal also ruled that an integration clause in the termination agreement between plaintiff and DLA Piper did not supersede the arbitration agreement in the offer letter. (C.A. 1st, December 16, 2015.)
Attorney Fees
Kerkeles v. City of San Jose (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 9253865: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s attorney fee award following the settlement of a civil rights case. The amount awarded was substantially less than plaintiff had requested. Under the settlement agreement, plaintiff was entitled to receive attorney fees under 42 United States Code section 1988. The Court of Appeal concluded that the reasoning expressed in the trial court’s order did not meet the federal criterion of a clear and specific explanation sufficient for meaningful appellate review. Where, as here, the case concerned the vindication of an individual’s civil rights, the Court of Appeal could not endorse the trial court’s “draconian, blanket reduction in complete and uncritical conformance to the defendants’ proposals.” (C.A. 6th, December 18, 2015.)
Attorneys
Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 8355515: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting terminating sanctions due to counsel’s misconduct. Plaintiff’s attorney, representing himself, threatened defendants’ counsel with pepper spray and a stun gun at a deposition. After defendants moved for terminating sanctions, plaintiff filed an opposition that was openly contemptuous of the trial court. The trial court described the acts as “the most outrageous behavior that I have ever heard of in my life by an attorney.” As the Court of Appeal noted, such conduct can have consequences. (C.A. 2nd, December 9, 2015.)
Civil Procedure (Discovery)
Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (Beatty) (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 7951258: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition, by defendants in a pending action, challenging the trial court’s order requiring defendants to produce 167 e-mails identified on a privilege log because the log failed to describe the subject matter or content of the e‑mails. The Court of Appeal ruled that, when a trial court is confronted with a deficient privilege log that fails to provide the necessary information to rule on attorney-client and work product objections, it may order the responding party to provide a further privilege log that includes the necessary information to rule on those objections, but may not order the privileges waived based on deficiencies in the privilege log. Serving a deficient privilege log is not one of the three statutorily-authorized methods for waiving the attorney-client privilege. The trial court may impose monetary sanctions for providing a deficient privilege log, and it may impose evidence, issue, and even terminating sanctions if the responding party persists in its failure to provide the court with the information necessary to rule on the objections’ merits. But a forced waiver is not authorized by either the statutory scheme establishing the attorney-client privilege, or the discovery statutes, once the responding party preserves the objections by timely asserting them in response to an inspection demand. (C.A. 4th, December 4, 2015.)
Civil Rights
Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc. (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 8526357: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendant in an action where plaintiff alleged defendant violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code, section 51 et seq.) and the unfair competition law (Business & Professions Code, section 17200 et seq.) by charging persons ages 18 to 29 a lower membership fee than it charged to persons age 30 and over. The trial court properly concluded that defendant established that its program provided 18- to 29‑year-olds with lower-cost access to the healthful benefits of health club membership, 18‑ to 29-year-olds have lower median incomes than persons over 30 in the relevant geographical areas, and charging 18- to 29-year-olds less than persons over 30 did not perpetuate irrational stereotypes. Defendant met its burden to demonstrate that its pricing program did not constitute arbitrary, unreasonable or invidious discrimination, the program did not reflect an arbitrary, class-based generalization, and that public policy supported the disparate pricing. The burden therefore shifted to plaintiff to establish a triable issue of material fact, and plaintiff failed to do so. (C.A. 1st, December 11, 2015.)
Kerkeles v. City of San Jose (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 9253865: See summary above under Attorney Fees.
Class Actions
Palacio v. Jan and Gail’s Care Homes, Inc. (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 8109386: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a motion for class certification. At hire, employees of defendant were required to sign an agreement waiving their right to uninterrupted meal periods in accordance with the facility’s standard operating procedures. Plaintiff argued defendant was obligated under the Labor Code to inform employees they had the right to revoke the waiver agreement at any time. The trial court properly concluded, after considering the relevant code provisions, that defendant was not obligated to comply with subdivision 11(A) of Wage Order 5, and was not obligated to inform its employees they could revoke the waiver agreement at any time. (C.A. 5th, December 7, 2015.)
Contracts (Integration Clauses)
Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 8057959: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of $1.1 million, and an attorney fee award of $1.8 million, entered after a trial before a referee pursuant to a stipulation. Plaintiff sued defendant alleging several causes of action arising from the purchase of environmentally compromised real property, and alleged damages stemming from environmental cleanup and related issues. The referee erred by admitting extrinsic evidence when the purchase and sale agreement contained language stating that “no extrinsic evidence whatsoever may be introduced” in any case involving the agreement. The referee properly construed an environmental indemnity provision to be broad enough to include both first and third party claims. The referee erred in awarding damages of $1 million for loss of use because there was insufficient evidence to support the amount of the award. Plaintiff apparently chose to focus on diminution in value damages. There was no testimony at all regarding an appropriate damage award strictly for loss of use. Finally, the referee erred in finding negligent representation when he did not find any damages were caused by the conduct. Plaintiff’s damages were reduced to $117,050, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration of which party was the prevailing party and entitled to attorney fees. (C.A. 4th, filed November 6, 2015, published December 7, 2015.)
Employment
Flowers v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 7575643: the Court of Appeal reversed in part, and sustained in part, the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer to three causes of action in an action alleging failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code section 1194 and wage order 9, civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), and failure to provide rest periods or to pay premiums for missed rest periods under Labor Code section 226.7 and wage order 9. The Court of Appeal concluded that Public Utility Code sections 30257 and 30750(c) do not exempt the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) as a matter of law from minimum wage requirements imposed by the Labor Code and wage order 9, and the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer to this cause of action. The Court of Appeal found that the rest period requirements in section 12 of wage order 9 did not apply to plaintiff and other MTA employees because the exemption accorded by Labor Code section 514 applied, as did the exemption set forth in section 12(C) of wage order 9. The order sustaining the demurrer to this cause of action was affirmed. Finally, the order sustaining the demurer to the PAGA claims was overruled because that decision was based solely on defendant’s claim that the Labor Code claims were precluded. (C.A. 2nd, filed November 25, 2015, published December 17, 2015.)
Palacio v. Jan and Gail’s Care Homes, Inc. (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 8109386: See summary above under Class Actions.
Prue v. Brady Company/San Diego, Inc. (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 8545173: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendant in an action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Court of Appeal concluded that plaintiff’s complaint was timely filed and adequately alleged facts apprising defendant of his cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment, and further erred by denying plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. (C.A. 4th, filed November 17, 2015, published December 11, 2015.)
Evidence (Attorney-Client Privilege, Parole Evidence)
Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (Beatty) (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 7951258: See summary above under Civil Procedure.
Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 8057959: See summary above under Contracts.
Insurance
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Shimon (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 7778117: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s declaratory judgment finding no coverage under the insurance policy for the actions of a minor who was driving a truck owned by her father. The trial court properly concluded there was no coverage under the remarried mother’s policy, for a non-owned vehicle owned by the minor’s father, because the truck was furnished or available for the minor’s regular use. (C.A. 3rd, filed December 3, 2015, published December 17, 2015.)
Judges (Compensation)
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 8736368: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the complaint. The Court of Appeal concluded that Government Code 68220, when properly construed, allows Los Angeles County to continue paying new judges who took office after July 1, 2008, supplemental benefits on the same terms and conditions as it was paying judges in office on July 1, 2008. (C.A. 4th, December 14, 2015.)
Real Property (CEQA, Landlord-Tenant, Unlawful Detainer)
Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 8057959: See summary above under Contracts.
Torts (Legal Malpractice)
Kemper v. County of San Diego (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 7820870: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendants. In 2010, the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment terminating plaintiff’s parental rights to her daughter, rejecting plaintiff’s contention that claimed ineffective assistance by her appointed juvenile dependency attorneys caused the termination of her parental rights. Plaintiff later brought a legal malpractice action against the same appointed juvenile dependency attorneys, their supervising attorney, and the County of San Diego, alleging that defendants’ legal representation breached the applicable standard of care and caused the termination of her parental rights. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court properly granted the motion for summary judgment based upon the collateral estoppel doctrine. Causation is an essential element of a legal malpractice claim, and plaintiff was barred by the collateral estoppel doctrine from relitigating the issue of whether her juvenile dependency attorneys caused the termination of her parental rights. (C.A. 4th, December 4, 2015.)
See Ca. opinions at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions.htm
Copyright © 2015 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
