In Carter v. Cohen, tenant Lauren Carter sued her landlord Jerry Cohen, alleging that rent increases on an unpermitted guesthouse violated the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), and sought recovery of excess rent paid. A jury awarded Carter $11,590 in damages for overpayments, and the trial court granted her $25,575 in attorney fees under the RSO's fee-shifting provision. Cohen appealed, arguing the rental agreement was unlawful, the unit fell outside the RSO, and fees were improper because the damages were recoverable in a limited civil case. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the RSO's rent limits and remedies apply to unregistered or unpermitted units on the same lot as another dwelling, that the ordinance prohibits demanding rent above the maximum adjusted amount regardless of the unit's legal status, and that the fee award was authorized by the statute.
The case concerned a mobilehome park owner's challenge to a City of Carson ordinance that created presumptions about whether a proposed conversion to resident ownership was bona fide, based on the percentage of resident support shown in the survey required by Government Code section 66427.5 (over 50 percent presumed bona fide, under 35 percent presumed not bona fide, and 35-50 percent requiring proof of a viable plan to convey a majority of lots to current residents). The trial court concluded the city's role under the statute was purely ministerial—limited to confirming receipt of the survey—and issued a writ vacating the ordinance and a related moratorium ordinance. The Court of Appeal held that the city's responsibilities are not purely ministerial but that the ordinance nonetheless conflicted with section 66427.5 by imposing unauthorized criteria and presumptions, making it invalid; it further held that the challenge to the expired moratorium was moot and therefore reversed in part and affirmed in part.
In Colony Insurance v. Crusader Insurance, Colony sued Crusader seeking a declaration that Crusader improperly refused to defend a tenant lawsuit against their shared insured building owner and an equitable share of defense costs, arguing that Crusader waived the right to deny coverage based on the insured's misrepresentations in the application because it failed to investigate public records as required by its internal underwriting guidelines. The trial court ruled for Crusader after a bench trial, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. The appellate court held that Colony forfeited its waiver and estoppel argument by failing to raise it until after trial in objections to the statement of decision, and that the argument failed on the merits because the insurer's internal guidelines created no enforceable rights for Colony; the court also rejected the claim of improper postclaims underwriting.
The case involved claims by Baishali Das against Bank of America under California's elder abuse statutes, alleging that the bank failed to report suspected financial abuse of her father, who had dementia and fell victim to lottery scams after a bank loan, and that the bank engaged in misconduct by facilitating transfers and issuing a suspicious mortgage. The trial court sustained the bank's demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the complaints alleged no facts establishing liability against the bank under the statutes because the reporting requirements did not create a private right of action in these circumstances and the bank owed no fiduciary duty breached by the loan or transfers. The court reasoned that the elder abuse provisions, including section 15630.1, impose duties on mandated reporters but do not support the asserted civil claims based on the pleaded facts.
This case involved a father residing in Mexico appealing a juvenile court order terminating his reunification services with his three children at the six-month review hearing in a dependency proceeding initiated due to findings of physical and sexual abuse by the mother and stepfather, as well as the father's failure to provide support. The father argued that notice of the hearing was invalid under the Hague Service Convention, which he claimed required service by registered mail, and that the Department of Children and Family Services had not provided adequate reunification services. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, holding in the published portion that the Hague Service Convention does not apply to service of notice for review hearings in juvenile dependency cases, and that the father had received proper notice by certified or registered mail with translated documents while failing to preserve or substantiate his claims regarding services.
Edward Walton sued The William Powell Company for negligence and strict liability after developing lung cancer, alleging exposure to asbestos from valves Powell supplied to the Navy along with gaskets and packing. A jury awarded the Waltons over $5.6 million in damages. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Walton's injuries resulted entirely from asbestos products made by other manufacturers. Under the component parts doctrine, Powell could not be held liable because it only supplied non-defective valves and did not substantially participate in integrating asbestos components into a defective final product.
