This case involved a dispute between a law firm, Benjamin, Weill & Mazer, and its former client, Nancy Hurwitz Kors, over unpaid attorney fees from representation in a prior lawsuit. After binding arbitration under Bar Association of San Francisco rules resulted in an award to the law firm, Kors sought to vacate it, arguing the chief arbitrator failed to disclose business relationships that could raise doubts about impartiality as required by the California Arbitration Act. The trial court confirmed the award, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the arbitrator's relationships triggered the disclosure obligation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.9 because they could cause a reasonable person to doubt impartiality. The core reasoning centered on the broad scope of mandatory disclosures for neutral arbitrators, which extends beyond direct party or counsel ties and includes matters that might affect perceived fairness, leading to vacatur for noncompliance.
In this case, petitioner Kuldip S. Kler, convicted in 1989 of second degree murder and serving 15 years to life, challenged the Governor's 2010 reversal of the Board of Parole Hearings' grant of parole, which had been based solely on the commitment offense and lack of insight. After the Court of Appeal previously granted habeas relief on an earlier denial, the petitioner filed this new petition directly in the appellate court rather than the superior court. The court first addressed its jurisdiction, concluding that California Rules of Court rule 8.385(c)(2) requiring initial superior court filing was inconsistent with the state Constitution's grant of original habeas jurisdiction to appellate courts and that extraordinary circumstances justified hearing the matter directly. On the merits, the court held that the Governor's reversal lacked the required "some evidence" that Kler posed an unreasonable risk of violence if released. It therefore granted the petition, vacated the Governor's decision, and reinstated the Board's 2009 parole grant.
The case concerned R. Brian Hines and Jane Hines's petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors' approval of coastal and use permits allowing construction of a single-family residence and garage with a reduced 50-foot riparian setback instead of the 100-foot requirement under the local coastal program, as well as the California Coastal Commission's refusal to assert jurisdiction on the ground that the appeal raised no substantial issue. The superior court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that judgment. The court reasoned that the project satisfied the Local Coastal Program because the reduced setback adequately protected the resource, that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA, and that there was no substantial evidence of significant environmental effects, unusual circumstances, or cumulative impacts that would bar the exemption or require further review of alternatives or mitigation measures.
In this case, Joseph Calderon, convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm in 1994 and sentenced to 18 years to life, was found suitable for parole by the Board of Parole Hearings in 2008 after demonstrating remorse and addressing issues related to his offense. The Governor reversed the Board's decision, and Calderon petitioned for habeas corpus relief, first denied in superior court. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, holding that the Governor's reversal lacked any evidentiary support. The opinion reviewed the facts of the 1993 commitment offense, Calderon's parole hearing testimony accepting responsibility, and statistical patterns in gubernatorial parole reviews but concluded no evidence justified denying release.
Cypress Security, LLC, the former provider of security services to the San Francisco Department of Human Services, lost a competitive bidding process under a request for proposals to Guardsmark, LLC, and filed a petition for writ of mandate to set aside the contract award. The RFP process scored proposals on criteria including contractor strengths, organizational capacity, and fiscal areas such as pricing structure, with Guardsmark ultimately receiving the higher total score after supplemental questions and evaluation by a panel. Cypress challenged the scoring, particularly on pricing and compliance with a collective bargaining agreement preference, along with other procedural aspects, but the trial court denied relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the city's evaluation followed the RFP terms, that any deviations were immaterial or properly handled, and that the administrative record supported the award decision.
This case involved a dispute between the San Francisco Housing Authority and the Service Employees International Union over the layoff of employee Donise Manchester, who had held various classifications over 14 years. The arbitrator found that the Housing Authority violated the MOU's seniority and bumping provisions by not properly considering Manchester's rights and ordered a remedy to address the breach. The trial court vacated the entire award, ruling that the remedy conflicted with the MOU's layoff terms and thus exceeded the arbitrator's authority under the agreement's restrictions. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the arbitrator acted within her powers because the remedy was rationally related to the violation found, the parties had stipulated that she could determine the appropriate remedy if a breach occurred, and her decision did not amend the contract. The core reasoning emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited and does not permit vacating an award for mere errors in interpreting the agreement.