| Warwick California Corp. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. |
| Docket: A155523(First Appellate District) Opinion Date: January 7, 2020 Judge: Tucher Areas of Law: Civil Procedure |
| Six companies affiliated with Warwick Hotels sued companies affiliated with Applied Underwriters, claiming breach of contract and fraud and unfair business practices relating to the purchase of workers’ compensation insurance. Applied moved to stay the action under Code of Civil Procedure 418.10; the parties’ agreement required that claims relating to the agreement be filed in Nebraska, where Applied was incorporated. Applied argued that Warwick’s workers’ compensation program involved employees in New York, Colorado, Texas, and California, and that “[t]he California portion ... was . . . by far the smallest component, representing only 5 percent of the total payroll at issue.” The court stayed the action as to all plaintiffs except two Warwick companies that are incorporated in California. A subsequent statement of decision (SOD) stated: "this trial was limited to Warwick’s California entities only, and the trial determined that damages cannot be 'allocated or apportioned between California and non-California Warwick entities.’ Because both sides failed to prove the essential element of damages, their arguments on other elements of contract breach need not be reached.” The court of appeal dismissed an appeal. The SOD is not a judgment or an appealable order. The court indicated that judgment cannot be entered until other issues are decided in their proper forum. Once that happens, the stay can be lifted, a final judgment can be entered, and the parties can appeal. |
| |
| People v. L.W. |
| Docket: B294336(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: January 7, 2020 Judge: Perren Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law |
| After L.W. was charged in a juvenile wardship petition with committing sexual battery against two minor females, the juvenile court issued temporary restraining orders against defendant as to the two alleged victims under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 213.5 and rule 5.630 of the California Rules of Court. The Court of Appeal held that because the People presented no evidence of an emergency or other urgency and made no attempt to give defendant prior notice of their intent to seek the temporary restraining orders, the juvenile court erred in issuing those orders without notice. However, the court held that the juvenile court did not err in issuing the pre-adjudication three-year restraining order, because the order was a reasoned and reasonable response to defendant's conduct and the other relevant facts of the case. Furthermore, the order was entirely consistent with the public policy objectives underlying the juvenile delinquency laws generally and section 213.5 specifically. Accordingly, the court affirmed the three-year restraining order. |
| |
| People v. Cornelius |
| Docket: B296605(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: January 7, 2020 Judge: Tangeman Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and the jury found true allegations that he personally used a firearm and that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. After the enactment of Senate Bill No. 1437, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code 1170.95. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition for resentencing, holding that defendant was ineligible for relief because he was not convicted of felony murder or murder as an aider or abettor under a natural and probable consequences theory. In this case, the jury convicted defendant of second degree murder and found true that he personally and intentionally used a firearm to commit the crime. Therefore, the jury implicitly found that defendant was the "actual killer," and the changes to Penal Code section 188 and 189 were inapplicable. |
| |
| People v. Venegas |
| Docket: B292976(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: January 7, 2020 Judge: Wiley Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| Defendants Venegas and Santana appealed their convictions and sentences related to the murder of Fabian Acevedo. The Court of Appeal rejected Venegas's claims of evidentiary errors and held that the trial court did not err by imposing a concurrent term on count two instead of staying the sentence under Penal Code section 654. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support Santana's conviction for aiding and abetting the murder; the trial court gave a proper reasonable doubt instruction; the trial court correctly cited People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1073, in support of admitting evidence of a disassembled assault rifle and magazines found at Venegas's house; and, although Senate Bill 1393 applies to Santana retroactively, remand was unnecessary. Finally, the court declined sentencing remands under Senate Bill 620, and held that defendants have forfeited their arguments regarding fines and fees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgments. |
| |
| Bom v. Superior Court |
| Docket: B292788(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: January 7, 2020 Judge: Frances Rothschild Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law |
| The People charged petitioners, social workers with the DCFS, with felony child abuse and falsifying public records after petitioners provided emergency and family maintenance services to a child who ended up dying six weeks after the case was closed as a result of child neglect and severe head trauma inflicted by his mother and her boyfriend. The Court of Appeal explained that, because the allegations against petitioners under Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a) are based on their alleged nonfeasance, the People would be required to prove that the petitioners either had the duty and ability to control the child's abusers or had custody or control of the child. The court held that petitioners never had the requisite duty to control the abusers and did not have care or custody of the child for purposes of Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a). The court also held that petitioners were not officers within the meaning of Government Code section 6200 and thus there was no probable cause to hold them on charges of violating those laws. Therefore, the trial court should have granted the motions to dismiss and the court granted the petitions for review. |
| |
| Sachs v. Sachs |
| Docket: B292747(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: January 7, 2020 Judge: Tangeman Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates |
| The Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court's order granting a petition for instructions allowing the trustee to treat lifetime gifts to trust beneficiaries as advances on their inheritances. The court held that Probate Code section 21135, subdivision (a)(2) has been satisfied where the trial court could reasonably conclude that the Permanent Record was sufficient to satisfy the writing requirement; parole evidence was properly admitted to interpret the writing; subdivision (a)(3) has been satisfied where the trial court could reasonably conclude the emails constitute a written acknowledgement that the distributions were advancements; and the trial court properly found a disparity in payments between the parties. |
| |
