Nora Margaret Manella

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

torts & liability

The case involved homeowners who sued their lender after a foreclosure sale, claiming the lender had orally promised to postpone the sale to allow time for refinancing. The trial court granted summary judgment to the lender on all claims, finding the foreclosure valid, no consideration for any contract, the promise too vague for promissory estoppel, and no basis for unfair practices. The appellate court affirmed on the wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and unfair practices claims but reversed on promissory estoppel, holding that the lender's promise was sufficiently clear, the homeowners reasonably relied on it by proceeding with refinancing, and estoppel principles overcome defenses like the statute of frauds.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, Jocer Enterprises and its owners sued their former attorney Ernest Price and his firm for legal malpractice and indemnity, alleging errors in handling a trade secrets lawsuit against a former employee and a subsequent malicious prosecution action, including an anti-SLAPP motion that led to a fee award against the plaintiffs. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of most claims, including the indemnity claim related to the fee award, but reversed in part on the malpractice claim to allow potential amendment, while addressing issues of claim accrual, tolling provisions such as those under sections 351 and 352, and whether the anti-SLAPP fee award created a viable indemnity claim. The court reasoned that the malpractice claim was time-barred based on when actual injury occurred and the one-year and four-year limitation periods, though other grounds supported affirmance on some issues, and no duty existed for indemnity against the attorneys for sanctions imposed under the anti-SLAPP statute.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved former police officer Michael Joseph Singleton, who was charged with assaulting an arrestee and filing a false report about the arrest. After his first trial ended in a mistrial, a second jury convicted him on both counts, resulting in a sentence of probation and jail time. The court of appeal affirmed the convictions, holding that the prosecution's use of the internal investigator as an expert witness on the arrest video did not violate Kastigar standards for witnesses exposed to the defendant's compelled Lybarger-protected statement. The court further found the witness qualified to offer the limited opinion and that the defendant had an adequate opportunity for cross-examination.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, JT’s Frames obtained a large class settlement in Illinois against a fax advertiser for violating the TCPA and related state laws by sending over 74,000 unsolicited faxes, then assigned its rights under the advertiser’s State Farm policies to pursue coverage. State Farm, an Illinois company headquartered in California, filed a declaratory relief action in California seeking a ruling that the policies provided no coverage for “advertising injury” or “property damage,” and JT’s moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion to quash, the parties litigated the merits, and the court granted summary judgment to State Farm; JT’s appealed both rulings. The Court of Appeal held that the denial of the motion to quash was not appealable once JT’s made a general appearance and litigated the case, and that the policies did not cover the TCPA claims because the faxes did not involve publication of material violating privacy rights or any covered “occurrence.” It therefore affirmed the judgment in State Farm’s favor.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Total Call International (TCI), a provider of prepaid phone cards, which sued its insurer Peerless for breach of contract and bad faith after Peerless declined to defend TCI in a lawsuit brought by competitors alleging damages from TCI's advertising. The trial court sustained Peerless's demurrer without leave to amend, finding no duty to defend. The appellate court affirmed, holding that although the underlying claims potentially involved advertising injury under the policy's coverage for disparagement, they were excluded by the policy's nonconformity exclusion for injuries arising from the failure of TCI's products to conform to statements in its advertisements. The court reasoned that the competitors' allegations concerned only misrepresentations about TCI's own cards, not statements about competitors' products, and found no ambiguity in the policy language that would trigger coverage.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned petitions for administrative mandamus by Planning and Conservation League and California Water Impact Network challenging an environmental impact report (EIR) certified by Castaic Lake Water Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a permanent transfer of State Water Project water from Kern County Water Agency and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District to Castaic. The trial court rejected the petitioners' main arguments but identified one defect in the EIR and issued a writ of mandate requiring decertification of the EIR. On appeal and cross-appeal, the court concluded that the trial court had properly rejected the petitioners' principal contentions but had erred in issuing the writ, and therefore reversed the judgment.

environmentprocedure

In People v. Smith, the defendant was charged with dozens of counts of grand theft and securities-related fraud offenses stemming from an alleged investment scheme that solicited funds from multiple victims through agreements promising high returns. After the prosecution presented testimony from eight victims and other evidence at trial, the court dismissed many counts but the defendant was convicted on the surviving charges. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that documents executed by non-testifying victims were properly authenticated by their content and circumstantial evidence and did not constitute hearsay, that any error in their admission was harmless due to overwhelming evidence against the defendant, that a prosecutorial comment on the defendant's silence was a misstatement with no effect on the verdict, and that the trial court's Pitchess review was not erroneous.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

Murray Company challenged Cal-OSHA citations for unsafe practices at its workplace by filing appeal forms with the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board but omitted the required copies of the citations, despite explicit notices from the Board warning of potential dismissal. After the appeals were dismissed and reconsideration was denied, Murray petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate, which the trial court denied. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the Board’s procedural rules requiring citation copies were clear and unambiguous, that Murray’s misunderstanding did not constitute grounds for relief under the applicable statutes or doctrines of excusable neglect, and that the Board had consistently treated such omissions as fatal to appeals.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a juvenile dependency proceeding in which the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services sought to detain three children after findings of physical and sexual abuse by their mother and stepfather. Appellant Martin O., the children's biological father living in Mexico, appealed the juvenile court's rulings that he was not their presumed father under Family Code section 7611(d) and that jurisdiction was proper under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), due to his long-term failure to provide support. The Court of Appeal held that the evidence established appellant's presumed father status because he had lived with the children from birth until 1996 and held them out as his own, but it affirmed the jurisdictional finding under subdivision (g) as supported by substantial evidence of nonsupport. The court remanded the matter for entry of an order declaring appellant the presumed father and for compliance with Indian Child Welfare Act procedures.

family lawprocedure

In Jazayeri v. Mao, appellants who raised and sold chickens sued respondents (buyers and their company) for breach of contract and fraud, alleging that respondents altered USDA poultry condemnation certificates to deduct excessive amounts for dead or unusable chickens, underpaid per the agreed price, and refused some deliveries. The trial court excluded most of appellants' documentary evidence for lack of authentication and hearsay, then entered judgment for respondents after finding appellants failed to meet their burden of proof. The appellate court held that this blanket exclusion was error, concluding that many documents were properly authenticated and admissible as official records under Evidence Code section 1280, business records under section 1271, or admissions under sections 1220 and 1221. The court reasoned that Evidence Code provisions allow admission without a witness in every case if trustworthiness is shown, and the trial court should have considered the documents individually rather than excluding them wholesale.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc. involved a tenant who sued her apartment owner and manager after living in a unit with mold growth, alleging negligence, fraud, battery, and emotional distress from resulting health problems including fear of cancer. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the trial judge properly excluded the plaintiff's expert testimony on causation because the experts relied on unsupported assumptions about mycotoxin exposure and inadmissible tests such as SPECT scans and certain blood analyses that lacked scientific foundation under Evidence Code section 801. The court noted that while mold was present, there was no reliable evidence linking it to the plaintiff's specific ailments.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a workers' compensation dispute over whether an injured employee was entitled to a 15 percent increase in permanent disability benefits under Labor Code section 4658, subdivision (d)(2), due to the employer's failure to offer suitable work after the disability became permanent. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration on the ground that the issue had not been raised before the workers' compensation judge. The court concluded that the issue was properly presented through the parties' pretrial statements and medical reports indicating no restricted duty was available, and that the statute applied because the pulmonary injury became permanent after the relevant date.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether a bail bond forfeiture, triggered when defendant Yolanda Davis failed to appear at a criminal hearing, should be vacated under Penal Code section 1305(c)(2) after she was later arrested on an unrelated shoplifting charge, the outstanding bench warrant was discovered by Culver City police, and she was released without being held on the warrant at the request of Inglewood authorities citing medical concerns. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the surety Fairmont's motion, holding that the forfeiture must be set aside and the bond exonerated. It reasoned that the events constituted an "arrest" or "hold" under section 1305(h), that the defendant's nonappearance was attributable to the actions of law enforcement rather than the surety, and that the statute's text and purpose require exoneration in such circumstances to avoid creating disincentives for warrant enforcement.

criminal lawprocedure

Gustavo Naranjo filed a class action against his former employer Spectrum Security Services, a federal contractor providing security services, alleging violations of California Labor Code provisions on meal and rest breaks (section 226.7), penalties for unpaid wages upon termination (section 203), and itemized wage statements (section 226). Spectrum sought summary judgment on the ground that the federal Service Contract Act (SCA) preempted the state claims and required pursuit of remedies exclusively through the SCA's administrative process. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims. On appeal, the court reviewed the preemption issue de novo and affirmed in part and reversed in part.

labor & employmentfederal power