John Anthony Kline

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

environmentpropertyprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a constitutional challenge by health care providers and other petitioners to Governor Schwarzenegger's use of line-item veto authority under the California Constitution to further reduce midyear appropriations in the 2009 Budget Act beyond the cuts already made by the Legislature. The Court of Appeal considered whether those reductions qualified as 'items of appropriation' subject to the Governor's veto power. The court upheld the Governor's actions, concluding they fell within his constitutional authority to reduce or eliminate such items. The reasoning focused on the text of article IV, section 10, subdivision (e), the nature of the budget bill and subsequent legislation as appropriations, and the distinction between permissible negative vetoes and impermissible affirmative alterations.

procedurehealthcare

The case involved a boundary dispute between adjacent waterfront property owners on Taylor Slough regarding their respective littoral rights to the adjacent water, with plaintiffs alleging trespass by defendants' houseboat and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication after the State Lands Commission applied the Colonial Method to confirm the boundary line, while denying defendants' motions to amend their pleadings to add claims of adverse possession or prescriptive easement. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that defendants presented only speculative evidence regarding state ownership of the submerged land and failed to raise triable issues of material fact on the boundary or related defenses.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between long-term tenants and their landlord over whether the landlord violated San Francisco's Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance by evicting the tenants for repairs and then refusing to allow them to reoccupy the unit after 90 days. Following a bench trial in the wrongful eviction action, the superior court awarded the tenants damages and attorney fees. The court rejected the landlord's defenses, including claims that the prior unlawful detainer judgment conferred permanent possession and barred the tenants' suit under res judicata or collateral estoppel, that a post-judgment stipulation constituted a surrender of the lease, and that the litigation privilege applied. The core reasoning was that the unlawful detainer action addressed only the landlord's right to temporary possession for repairs and did not resolve the tenants' statutory right to reoccupy at the prior rent once the work was done.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Clement v. Alegre, plaintiffs sued defendant over a real property sale dispute and responded to 23 special interrogatories with objections to 20 of them, including claims that 'economic damages' was vague without reference to a specific Civil Code section and that follow-up questions violated the rule requiring each interrogatory to be full and complete in itself. The discovery referee found the objections unreasonable and evasive, leading the trial court to impose $6,632.50 in sanctions against plaintiffs for impeding the discovery process. On appeal, the court affirmed the sanctions, holding that the objections lacked legal merit, failed to promote the self-executing nature of civil discovery under the 1986 Act, and did not reflect a good-faith effort at informal resolution as required by statute. The decision emphasized that such tactics delay proceedings and waste judicial resources without justification.

procedure

The case involved defendant Arturo Jesus Hernandez's appeal from his conviction for assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, along with a true finding on a great bodily injury enhancement, after an incident with victim Deva Belarde. Hernandez challenged the trial court's decision to station a uniformed and armed bailiff directly behind him during his testimony without providing a curative instruction to the jury, as well as errors in instructing the jury on the enhancement's burden of proof, failing to consider striking the enhancement, and related ineffective assistance of counsel claims; a habeas petition raised similar issues. The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, concluding that the bailiff placement constituted reversible error, and did not reach the habeas petition or other claims. The core reasoning focused on the prejudicial impact of the heightened security measure on the fairness of the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In this juvenile delinquency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, the minor Edward S., a 17-year-old Native American, was alleged to have attempted lewd acts, annoyed or molested a child under 14, and made criminal threats against the same victim. The juvenile court denied the minor's motion for a new jurisdictional hearing after a brief contested hearing and sustained the petition. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that the public defender's excessive workload resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to adequately investigate potential exculpatory evidence or properly support the continuance request, which prejudiced the minor's right to competent representation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case stems from the 1998 shooting death of Lucilla Amaya by Union City police officer Tod Woodward during a response to a mental health crisis involving knives and methamphetamine. A jury found the officer and city liable for negligence and battery, apportioning fault at 50% to the officer, 45% to the city, and 5% to Amaya; prior appeals upheld liability against the officer (and the city vicariously) but eliminated the city's direct negligence liability due to sovereign immunity requirements. On remand and further appeal, the trial court reduced the plaintiffs' recovery by the city's 45% share, but the appellate court directed reallocation of that share proportionally between the officer and Amaya (resulting in 91% and 9%), and the current appeal concerns the start date for postjudgment interest. The court affirmed that interest runs from the date of the original 2001 judgment, reasoning that the prior decisions modified the judgment based on the jury's existing verdict without requiring new factfinding or constituting a true reversal. The core reasoning is that the plaintiffs' entitlement to recovery was established by the original verdict, and the city's removal from the tortfeasor pool merely adjusted allocation ratios without altering the underlying liability determination.

torts & liabilityprocedurecriminal law

The case People v. Ary involved a defendant convicted of first-degree murder and related crimes who had been denied a pretrial competency hearing under Penal Code section 1368 despite substantial evidence of mental retardation impairing his understanding of the proceedings and ability to assist in his defense. Following an earlier appellate finding of a due process violation under Pate v. Robinson, the trial court conducted a retrospective competency hearing but allocated the burden of proof to the defendant to establish incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory presumption of competency in section 1369, subdivision (f) applies only to hearings during pending criminal actions, not to a postsentencing nunc pro tunc hearing after a Pate violation; therefore, due process requires the prosecution to bear the burden of proving competence by a preponderance of the evidence. The court vacated the competency finding and remanded for reevaluation of the evidence under the proper standard.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case concerned a dispute over the division of survivor benefits under an ERISA-governed pension plan following the 1988 dissolution of Robert and Beverly Padgett's marriage. The dissolution judgment reserved jurisdiction over the pension but did not award Beverly any specific interest; Robert later remarried Donna, who became his widow and personal representative upon his death in 2005 before retirement. Beverly sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) nunc pro tunc after his death to claim a community property share of the preretirement survivor annuity, which the trial court granted. The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning that a mere reservation of jurisdiction without a prior award of benefits provided an inadequate basis for a QDRO once survivor benefits had vested in the current spouse under ERISA's antialienation rules and statutory scheme.

family lawproperty

In this juvenile delinquency case, the Mendocino County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against 17-year-old E.S., a Native American youth, alleging attempted lewd acts, annoying or molesting a child, and making criminal threats against a 10-year-old girl. After the juvenile court denied E.S.'s motion to inspect CPS records potentially relevant to the victim's credibility and later denied his motion for a new jurisdictional hearing, E.S. appealed. The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the record following a Wende brief, concluded that the superior court erred in denying the motion for a new jurisdictional hearing and reversed and remanded the case for that hearing to occur.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case involved a taxpayer's petition for a writ of mandate to compel the San Francisco Police Department to comply with Health and Safety Code section 11369, which requires notifying federal immigration authorities when an arrestee for specified drug offenses may not be a U.S. citizen. The trial court sustained a demurrer, finding the statute preempted by federal immigration authority, and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute is not per se preempted because it does not regulate immigration but instead facilitates cooperation with federal enforcement, which is constitutionally permissible under the Supremacy Clause and relevant precedents. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

immigrationcriminal lawfederal power

Zack's Inc. sued the City of Sausalito, the state, and Edgewater Yacht Sales, alleging that the city's month-to-month lease of a portion of Humboldt Avenue (a dedicated public street on tidelands held in public trust) for boat storage created a nuisance per se, violated Zack's easements for access, light, air, and visibility, and exceeded the authority granted by the 1957 statute transferring the tidelands to the city. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that all claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitation. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments, holding that the claims were not time-barred and could proceed to adjudication on the merits regarding the scope of the city's leasing authority under the public trust and related statutes.

propertyenvironmentproceduretorts & liability

In Thompson v. Toll Dublin, LLC, plaintiffs who purchased condominiums from defendants sued for various fraud-related claims, including rescission based on fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to disclose, alleging that the defendants concealed water damage and mold issues in the buildings prior to closing escrow. Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on provisions in the purchase agreements and related Title 7 documents governing construction defect disputes. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the arbitration agreements applied only to Title 7 construction defect claims and expressly excluded the fraud claims at issue. The court further reasoned that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable and thus unenforceable regardless of their scope.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a former employee's lawsuit against DHL Express alleging sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her employment. DHL moved to compel arbitration based on a mutual arbitration agreement the plaintiff had signed when hired by a predecessor company. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court found the agreement unenforceable because it was both procedurally unconscionable—due to its adhesive nature and lack of explanation or negotiation opportunity—and substantively unconscionable because of provisions limiting discovery, allocating arbitration costs, and granting the arbitrator exclusive authority over enforceability issues. These flaws together permeated the agreement and prevented severance of the problematic terms.

labor & employmentcivil rights