California Case Summaries

California Case Summaries New California Civil Cases

by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

These recent cases summarized by Monty A. McIntyre are from his publication California Case Summaries™. Monty prepares short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published California civil and family law case that California lawyers can subscribe to on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. For more information go to https:// californiacasesummaries.mykajabi.com. A California civil trial lawyer since 1980 and a member of ABOTA since 1995, Monty serves as a mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. handling cases in the areas of business, elder abuse, employment/wage & hour, insurance bad faith, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, personal injury, real property and wrongful death. To schedule a matter, contact Monty’s case manager Christopher Schuster at ADR Services, Inc. at (619) 233-1323 or christopher@adrservices.com.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Civil Code

Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (2020) _ Cal.5th _ , 2020 WL 827863 : The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal decision finding plaintiff’s action for damage to his trees from a fire that started on defendant’s property was untimely filed under the applicable three-year statute of limitations for trespass. The five-year statute of limitations and heightened damages provisions of section Civil Code 3346 are inapplicable to damages to timber, trees, or underwood from negligently escaping fires. (February 20, 2020.)

Employment

Frlekin v. Apple Inc. (2020) _ Cal.5th _ , 2020 WL 727813: Responding to a request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide a question of California law, the California Supreme Court ruled that time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees is compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 7-2001. (February 13, 2020.)

Kim v. Reins Internat. Cal., Inc. (2020) _ Cal.5th _ , 2020 WL 1174294: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s ruling affirming the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding the alleged Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Labor Code, section 2698 et seq.) violation after plaintiff settled his individual claims. Ruling on an issue of first impression, the California Supreme Court held that employees do not lose standing to pursue a claim under PAGA if they settle and dismiss their individual claims for Labor Code violations. Settlement of individual claims does not strip an aggrieved employee of standing, as the state’s authorized representative, to pursue PAGA remedies. (March 12, 2020.)

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Appeals

County of Humboldt v. App. Div. (2020) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 1164262: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition directing respondent to vacate its earlier order dismissing petitioner’s appeal and to issue a new order transferring the case to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings. In an enforcement action, petitioner issued a penalty of $88,800 against real party in interest Alejandro

Quezada for conditions on his property deemed to be public nuisances in violation of a county ordinance. Quezada filed a de novo appeal to the superior court, which reduced the penalty from $88,800 to $59,200. Petitioner then appealed to the superior court appellate department which dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled that, in an unlimited civil action, a final judgment or order from a de novo appeal to the superior court under Government Code section 53069.4 is reviewable on appeal to an intermediate appellate court. (C.A. 1st, March 10, 2020.)

Arbitration

Aldea Dos Vientos v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. (2020) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 581464: The Court of Appeal overruled the trial court’s order confirming the arbitrator’s dismissal of an arbitration due to the homeowner association’s failure to vote in favor of pursuing arbitration before the arbitration was commenced as required by section 7.01B of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions. 1 The Court of Appeal found the arbitrator exceeded his power because section 7.01B contravened state statutory housing policy by giving the developer the unilateral power to bar actions for construction defects. The Court of Appeal declined to follow Branches Neighborhood Corp. v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 743 and ruled that section 7.01B violated the state policy against unreasonable servitudes set forth in the Davis-Stirling Act, which prohibits the enforcement of unreasonable provisions in the CC&R’s (Civil Code, section 5975(a)). (C.A. 2nd., February 6, 2020.) Dougherty v. Roseville Heritage Partners (2020) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 1501701: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a case alleging elder abuse and wrongful death based upon the reckless and negligent care given to plaintiffs’ elderly father while residing in defendants’ facility. The trial court properly found the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was part of a 70-page stack of documents that plaintiff Lori Dougherty lacked time to review because her father was arriving imminently in an ambulance, plaintiff was never told she could modify, negotiate, or refuse to sign any of the admission documents, and plaintiffs had established that Dougherty had no opportunity to negotiate the arbitration agreement. The trial court properly found the agreement to be substantively unconscionable because of its restrictions on discovery, 2 limitations on damages, 3 and advance waiver of jury trial rights for any nonarbitrable causes of action. The discovery limitations were particularly unconscionable because they limited the statutory discovery rights to vindicate an elder abuse claim. Finding the agreement was permeated with unconscionable provisions, the trial court properly declined to sever the offending provisions and declared the entire agreement void. (C.A. 3rd, March 30, 2020.)

1 Section 7.01B required a vote of at least 51 percent of the association’s membership prior to beginning arbitration. 2 Depositions could be requested but could not be taken as a matter of right. There was no provision for interrogatories or requests for admission.

3 Punitive damages could not be awarded.

Attorney Fees

George v. Shams-Shirazi (2020) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 632431: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order awarding wife attorney fees of $13,000 under Family Code section 271 for having to defend husband’s repeated attempts to modify a custody order. Husband’s sole argument on appeal was that wife’s request was untimely because it was filed later than 60 days after the final judgment as required by Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702(b). The Court of Appeal held that Rule 3.1702(b) does not apply to postjudgment claims for attorney fees awarded under Family Code section 271. (C.A. 1st, February 11, 2020.)

Attorneys

Reeve v. Meleyco (2020) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 1429362: The Court of Appeal reversed a judgment for plaintiff, following a jury trial, awarding plaintiff (an attorney suing for a referral fee) $78,750 and an award of $49,364.35 in prejudgment interest. Plaintiff was not entitled to a referral fee because the client’s written consent to the referral fee was not obtained as required by former rule 2-200 of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct (in effect during the relevant time period). Although the attorney handling the case later sent a letter to the client explaining that a referral fee would be paid, that it would not reduce the amount of the client’s recovery, and the client acknowledged getting this letter and understanding what it said, the Court of Appeal ruled that the acknowledgment did not constitute written consent to the referral fee. Finally, plaintiff’s quantum meruit claim was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. (C.A. 3rd, March 24, 2020.)

Civil Procedure

Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC v. Super. Ct. (2020) _ Cal. App.5th _ , 2020 WL 772610: The Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate and directed the superior court to vacate its order denying petitioner’s motion for summary judgment in a class action alleging California wage and hour violations by non-California residents and former crew members of a vessel that provided maintenance services to oil platforms located in the Pacific Ocean off the California coast. The trial court erred because Louisiana law, rather than California law, applied. Louisiana’s interest in the application of its laws was stronger than California’s. The employment relationships here were formed in Louisiana, between Louisiana-based employers and non-resident employees who traveled to that state to apply for, and accept employment. They received training and orientation in Louisiana and the administrative aspects of their employment were performed in that state. California’s interests were weaker because, although the crew members performed some of their work in California, neither the employees nor the employers were residents or taxpayers of California. (C.A. 2nd, February 18, 2020.)

Torts

Coats v. New Haven Unified School Dist. (2020) _ Cal. App.5th _ , 2020 WL 1181526: The Court of Appeal reversed the part of the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings against the minor plaintiff, but it affirmed the trial court’s order against the foster mother plaintiff in an action alleging the minor plaintiff had been sexually abused by one of her high school teachers. The trial court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings against both plaintiffs because they had not filed a government tort claim before they filed their lawsuit. The Court of Appeal reversed as to the minor plaintiff because of the 2019 amendment of Code of Civil Procedure 340.1, which extended the time to bring an action for damages resulting from childhood sexual assault to 22 years from the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or five years from the date plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual assault. (C.A. 1st, March 12, 2020.) n

We Know Marketing Like You Know The Law

From day one of your deposition to the last day of your trial, Peterson Reporting is an indispensable member of your trial team. Proven professionalism and proficiency for more than 25 years.

Locally owned, globally known.

Reporting Videography Trial Presentation Free Conference Rooms Live Streaming Services Video Conferencing Services Global Reach Complex Cases Accurate, Fast

530 B Street, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92101

Since 1986 petersonreporting.com

619 260 1069

Call to request green delivery of your transcripts and receive a discount.

Let us “do the time” to get your project right! • Writing for the layperson • Putting together a presentation • Developing a marketing strategy • Sprucing up your website • Designing an ad, booklet, flyer or brochure • Establishing a better logo, mission statement or tagline