| Dennison v. Rosland Capital LLC |
| Docket: B295350(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 1, 2020 Judge: Elizabeth A. Grimes Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Contracts |
| After plaintiff made four purchases of precious metals from defendants, he filed suit alleging that defendants misled him. Plaintiff, as trustee for the Dennison Family Trust, purchased the precious metals after seeing television commercials promoting such investments. The Court of Appeal held that the arbitration agreement does not clearly and unmistakably delegate authority to the arbitrator to decide unconscionability; the arbitration agreement is unconscionable based on lack of mutuality, limitations on defendants' liability, and the statute of limitations; and the court could not save the arbitration agreement by severing a single offending clause because the agreement is permeated with unconscionable terms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment. |
| |
| Pott v. Lazarin |
| Docket: H044587(Sixth Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 1, 2020 Judge: Nathan D. Mihara Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Communications Law, Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property |
| Audrie, the Potts’ daughter, was sexually assaulted while unconscious from intoxication. Her assailants distributed intimate photographs of her. Audrie committed suicide. The Potts, as the registered successors-in-interest to “deceased personality” rights for Audrie under Civil Code 3344.1, authorized the use of Audrie’s name and likeness in a documentary. The Potts sued Lazarin under section 3344.1, claiming that Lazarin (who claims to be Audrie’s biological father) had used Audrie’s name and likeness "for the purpose of advertising services” without their consent. Lazarin admitted that he had displayed Audrie’s photograph “to change the law regarding parental rights” but argued that he had not acted to promote “goods or services.” The Potts submitted evidence that Lazarin solicited donations for a suicide prevention group, using Audrie’s name and photograph. Lazarin brought an unsuccessful special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure 425.16. The court of appeal reversed. Lazarin made a prima facie showing that the Potts’ suit was based on his “written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” The Potts failed to establish that there was a “probability” that they would “prevail” on their Civil Code section 3344.1 suit; they did not show that Lazarin “misappropriate[ed] the economic value generated by [Audrie’s] fame through the merchandising” of her name or likeness. |
| |
| People v. Sepulveda |
| Docket: B289160(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 1, 2020 Judge: Dennis M. Perluss Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law |
| Defendant, who was 18 years old at the time of the attempted murders and 21 years old when he committed murder, seeks remand of his cause for a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, because his counsel stipulated, without his consent, to limit information regarding youth-related mitigating factors to a written submission following the sentencing hearing. The Court of Appeal held that counsel's stipulation to file the Franklin package after the sentencing hearing and without presentation of live testimony did not violate defendant's constitutional rights. The court also held that defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be presented in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, ordering a correction on the abstract of judgment to reflect the sentence. |
| |
| People v. Bell |
| Docket: F074656(Fifth Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 1, 2020 Judge: Charles S. Poochigian Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| Defendants were convicted of numerous crimes related to a 2007 robbery of a casino and a conspiracy to rob the casino again a year later. After defendants' convictions were conditionally reversed in a prior appeal, the prosecution moved to strike defendants' pleas of once in jeopardy. The trial court granted the motion and reinstated the prior judgments. The Court of Appeal held that the motion to strike defendants' double jeopardy plea was properly granted; Defendants Williams, Joseph, and Lewis have not shown prejudicial Sanchez error; and the court accepted the jury's concession that the 10 year personal firearm enhancement imposed on count 28 must be stricken as to Williams. The court remanded for the trial court to apply newly enacted legislation, Senate Bills 620 and 1393, to its sentencing decisions. |
| |
| Mountainlands Conservancy, LLC v. California Coastal Commission |
| Docket: B287079(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 1, 2020 Judge: Elizabeth A. Grimes Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law |
| The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of three limited liability companies' writ of mandate to vacate the California Coastal Commission's decision certifying a local coastal program for the Santa Monica Mountains that prohibits any new vineyards in the Santa Monica Mountains coastal zone. The court held that the Commission proceeded properly under Public Resources Code section 30514, and therefore was not required to make the "substantial issue" determination otherwise required by section 30512; there was no error in the Commission's construction and application of the agricultural protections embodied in sections 30241 and 30242; the Commission properly considered sections 30241 and 30242, finding that section 30241 does not apply, and appropriately protecting other lands suitable for agriculture; the April 10 hearing did not deny plaintiffs due process; and substantial evidence supported the Commission's decision to ban new vineyards. |
| |
| McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc. |
| Docket: B290869(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 1, 2020 Judge: Egerton Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law |
| EF appealed from the trial court's judgment awarding vacation wages to three of EF's former exempt employees. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal held that Labor Code section 227.3 applies to EF's purported "unlimited" paid time off policy based on the particular facts of this case. In this case, EF never told its employees that they had unlimited paid vacation; EF had no written policy or agreement to that effect, nor did its employee handbook cover these plaintiffs; and plaintiffs took less vacation than many of EF's other managers and exempt employees covered by the handbook, whose accrued vacation vested as they worked for EF month after month. |
| |
| Ford v. City of Los Angeles |
| Docket: B290236(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 1, 2020 Judge: Elizabeth A. Grimes Areas of Law: Personal Injury |
| After plaintiff was struck by a car while crossing a street on her way to school, she filed suit against the city. Plaintiff alleged that the intersection in which she was hit constituted a dangerous condition of public property within the meaning of Government Code section 835. A jury returned a defense verdict and found that the property was not a dangerous condition at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not commit evidentiary error in relying on the privilege set forth pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 409 to preclude admission of a document in which defendant acknowledged the subject intersection was hazardous. The court also rejected plaintiff's claim that defense counsel committed misconduct during trial. Furthermore, any potential jury confusion was cured by the trial court's thorough instructions to the jury. |
| |
