James F. Perley

This case involved an appeal by Jerry T. from a trial court order terminating his parental rights to his son Chad under Family Code section 7822, which accompanied a stepparent adoption petition; the termination was based on abandonment after Jerry T. left the family and was later imprisoned for murder. Court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues but requested independent review of the record under People v. Wende standards applicable to certain criminal appeals. The Court of Appeal held that no such independent review is required in Family Code parental rights termination cases, noting that the right to appointed counsel derives from state statute rather than constitutional mandates that trigger Wende review, and dismissed the appeal. The court urged the California Supreme Court to clarify the rule uniformly for all parental rights terminations.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Joanne Schmidt was entitled to continue receiving her deceased husband's city retirement benefits under the San Francisco Charter, which required proof that the couple had been married for at least one year before his death. Schmidt obtained an ex parte court order under Health and Safety Code section 10550 et seq. declaring that the marriage occurred in 1975, but the Retirement Board denied her claim after an administrative hearing found no valid 1975 marriage. The trial court ruled that the ex parte order was conclusive proof under Code of Civil Procedure section 1908(a)(1) and issued a writ directing the Board to pay the benefits. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that such an ex parte marriage order is merely a statistical record with no presumptive or conclusive evidentiary effect against third parties like the Board, whose due process rights would be impaired, and remanded for consideration of whether Schmidt qualified as a putative spouse.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Michael Ray Rogers, who was convicted by a jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm after an incident where he fired a flare gun at a wharfinger and police officers attempting to post notices on his illegally docked boat. Rogers appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to represent himself under Faretta v. California. The court found that the motion, made after jury selection had begun, was untimely and that its denial was erroneous, but concluded the error was harmless because the evidence against Rogers was strong, including his admissions and a videotape, and he was convicted of lesser offenses than charged.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a declaratory relief action brought by Fireman's Fund Insurance Company seeking a determination that Lester Davis was not covered under a commercial general liability policy issued to the Meyer companies. The trial court found that Davis was not an "employee" under the policy at the relevant times and thus not insured, a ruling affirmed on appeal. The appellate court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Davis was an independent contractor rather than an employee, based on factors including his control over the manner and means of his work, lack of set hours or reporting requirements, commission-only compensation, and the companies' limited supervision focused only on results. The court applied California precedents distinguishing employees from independent contractors and concluded it was unnecessary to address other coverage issues that had been severed.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case involved a dispute over legal paternity of a child named Michael, where Matthew (the mother's husband and biological father) and Steven (the man who raised the child from birth) both claimed fatherhood under the Uniform Parentage Act. The trial court ruled that both men qualified as presumed fathers but determined Steven's presumption was controlling due to his more extensive and ongoing relationship with the child, and it found Matthew estopped from rebutting that presumption. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that former Evidence Code section 621 did not apply, that the paternity issue was properly bifurcated and decided before custody matters, and that the strong policy favoring preservation of an established father-child relationship supported Steven's status as legal father. The court noted that best interests regarding custody and visitation could be addressed later. The judgment designating Steven as the father was affirmed.

family law

In Jue v. Patton, purchasers of apartment buildings sued the seller and her agent after a lender initiated foreclosure, filing a cross-complaint with tort and contract claims arising from the real estate sales agreement; the cross-complaint was later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before trial. The trial court initially awarded attorney fees to the seller and agent as prevailing parties under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1033.5 but reversed itself on reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the denial of fees, holding that Civil Code section 1717 and the rule from International Industries, Inc. v. Olen preclude recovery of contractual attorney fees when an action is voluntarily dismissed prior to trial, and that a 1990 amendment to section 1033.5 did not alter this longstanding practice. The court reasoned that the parties must bear their own fees in such pretrial dismissal scenarios regardless of the breadth of any attorney fee provision in the underlying contract.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Antonio Vianna suing his former employer, Doctors’ Management Company, and others after his employment was terminated, alleging claims including wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. Doctors appealed the trial court's denial of its petition to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in Vianna's employment contract. The appellate court reversed, holding that the broad language of the arbitration clause, covering "any dispute of any kind whatsoever" regarding the enforcement of the contract, encompassed Vianna's claims, which were rooted in the employment relationship. The court reasoned that under California's strong public policy favoring arbitration, doubts should be resolved in favor of arbitration, and the clause should be liberally interpreted.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In Bloom v. McGurk, Steve Bloom petitioned for a writ of mandate to require the California Department of Health Services to revoke medical waste permits issued in 1992 to Integrated Environmental Systems for its existing treatment facility in Oakland, arguing that the permits violated the California Environmental Quality Act because no environmental impact report or negative declaration had ever been prepared for the site. The trial court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the Department's issuance of the permits qualified for the Class 1 categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 for continued operation of existing facilities. The court reasoned that the facility had operated since 1982 with no increase in incinerator capacity or significant operational changes, that the Medical Waste Management Act treated prior hazardous waste authorizations as interim permits, and that substantial evidence supported the agency's determination of exemption without needing new environmental review. The judgment denying the writ was therefore affirmed.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether the widow of a city probation officer who died from a stroke could receive workers' compensation death benefits, or whether benefits were barred by the decedent's failure to diligently take prescribed medication for his hypertension. The workers' compensation judge awarded benefits based on evidence that job stress aggravated the hypertension and contributed to the fatal stroke, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied them, citing the employee's unreasonable refusal of treatment under Labor Code section 4056 and principles of contributory negligence. The court annulled the Board's decision and remanded for an award of benefits, holding that the avoidable consequences doctrine and section 4056 do not apply to forfeit benefits in workers' compensation claims absent an admitted or adjudicated industrial injury and a tender of treatment by the employer.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved neighbors of a Berkeley apartment complex suing its owners in small claims court for emotional distress caused by drug dealing and related illegal activity on the property, which they alleged constituted both private and public nuisances. After the plaintiffs prevailed and the owners appealed, the superior court conducted a trial de novo, found that the owners knew or should have known of the drug activity and failed to take reasonable steps to address it, and awarded damages totaling $218,325. The owners petitioned for a writ of mandate to set aside the judgment, arguing they could not be held liable for third-party criminal acts off their property, but the Court of Appeal denied the petition. The court reasoned that substantial evidence showed the property served as a hub for drug sales, the owners had not implemented feasible measures such as hiring a live-in manager or improving security, and nuisance liability was appropriate under the circumstances.

propertytorts & liabilitycriminal law

The case Centex Real Estate Corp. v. City of Vallejo involved real estate developers challenging the validity of a city ordinance imposing an excise tax on property development as a condition for building permits, arguing it was a disguised development fee subject to restrictions under Government Code section 66000 et seq. The court decided that the ordinance enacted a valid excise tax and affirmed the trial court's ruling denying the developers' request to rescind the ordinance and refund the taxes. The core reasoning was that the statute explicitly excludes taxes from the definition of development fees, the city's charter authorized the tax, there was no conflict with state law, and the city had separately enacted compliant development fees for specific impacts while using this tax for general revenue.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a dispute between Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Lifeguard over which plan must cover emergency medical costs for a patient enrolled in both plans. Kaiser paid the full amount after Lifeguard refused and then sued for reimbursement. The trial court ruled that Kaiser's out-of-plan reduction provision was invalid under Department of Corporations coordination-of-benefits regulations, assigning all costs to Kaiser. The appellate court reversed, holding that Insurance Code section 10270.98 permits Kaiser's provision as a group practice prepayment plan for non-contracted emergency services, while Lifeguard's valid rules make it primary in this scenario, resulting in each plan owing half the costs.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a condominium owner who sued his homeowners association for slander of title after it recorded assessment liens on his property despite an alleged agreement excusing payment in exchange for maintenance services. The trial court sustained the association's demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that the lien publications were protected by the litigation privilege in Civil Code section 47(b). The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that assessment liens, like mechanic's liens, are authorized by law as a preliminary step toward foreclosure actions and thus qualify for the absolute privilege when made in connection with judicial proceedings. The court reasoned that the privilege applies to communications permitted by law to achieve litigation objectives, regardless of malice or timing before a lawsuit is filed, and noted that other remedies like quiet title actions remain available to contest improper liens.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a newspaper publishing a parody letter to the editor falsely attributed to a residential hotel owner in an April Fool's issue, prompting the individual to sue the paper and its publisher for libel, invasion of privacy, false light, and emotional distress. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, identifying a triable issue over whether the average reader would recognize the letter as a joke based on declarations from readers who did not. The appellate court issued a peremptory writ directing entry of summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the totality of circumstances—including the full parody issue—showed the statements were not reasonably understood as assertions of fact and were thus protected by the First Amendment.

free speechtorts & liability

This case concerned a proposed class action for refunds of California income taxes paid on dividends from mutual funds, where plaintiffs Donald and Joan Farrar sought to represent a large group of taxpayers after an earlier similar class action succeeded. The trial court denied class certification, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the plaintiffs' administrative refund claim failed to satisfy Revenue and Taxation Code section 19055. The court held that the statute must be strictly applied as written, requiring a class claim to include written authorizations from each taxpayer, signatures from each, and specific grounds, and that the doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply when these explicit prerequisites are unmet. The decision emphasized that the 1986 amendments to the statute were designed to prevent the administrative burdens of class claims that do not follow these formal steps from the outset.

taxesprocedure

In Wilson v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, the plaintiff sued the blood bank after contracting AIDS from a blood transfusion in November 1983, alleging negligence for failing to implement surrogate tests such as the anti-HBc test to screen for potential AIDS carriers before the disease's cause was identified. The trial court ruled in favor of the blood bank, and the appellate court affirmed this judgment. The court reasoned that blood banks are held to a professional standard of care, requiring proof that the defendant deviated from practices ordinarily followed by similar blood banks under comparable circumstances, and found no substantial evidence that Irwin Memorial Blood Bank had done so in its testing practices at the time.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a defendant convicted of felonies who sought a copy of his probation file from the probation department under the Public Records Act. The department denied the request, claiming the records were exempt court records protected by statute and confidentiality. The superior court denied the petition for mandate, and this court upheld that decision, ruling that probation files qualify as court records excluded from the Public Records Act. Although Penal Code section 1203.10 allows courts to permit inspection by certain persons including potentially the defendant, it does not require disclosure, and the petitioner here showed no cause for access.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Hildegard Borelli's suit against the executor of her late husband Michael Borelli's estate to enforce an alleged oral agreement. Under that agreement, the husband promised to leave her specific property interests, including real estate and business shares, in exchange for her providing round-the-clock home care after his stroke rather than allowing his placement in a nursing facility. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the wife's promise to provide care could not serve as valid consideration because spouses already owe each other a legal duty of mutual support under California statutes, and contracts altering marital relations are restricted by public policy favoring the stability of marriage.

family lawproperty

The case involved criminal charges against Nick Pappalardo for seven counts of grand theft, one count of attempted grand theft, and multiple securities-related offenses under the Corporations Code. Pappalardo moved to dismiss the charges, claiming immunity under Corporations Code section 25531(e) because he had given testimony at a compelled examination by the Department of Corporations. The trial court granted the motion after reconsideration, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the department hearing officer lacked authority to compel testimony without first obtaining a superior court order under the Government Code. Because no such order was sought or issued, the statutory immunity was never triggered, and the charges should not have been dismissed.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a lawsuit by David Soares against his supervisor Zeddie Williams and their employer, the City of Oakland, claiming battery after Williams physically intervened during an incident with a prisoner at the city jail. The trial court instructed the jury that liability required a specific intent to injure, and the jury found no such intent, leading to a verdict for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, interpreting the workers' compensation statute's exception for "willful and unprovoked physical act[s] of aggression" by coemployees to apply only to acts committed with the specific intent to injure, rather than covering all common law batteries. The court reasoned that the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation bars civil suits unless that intent is shown.

labor & employmenttorts & liability