California Case Summaries

by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™ which provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case helping California lawyers easily master the new case law in their practice areas, get better results and referrals, and grow their law practice (https:// cacasesummaries.com). Monthly, quarterly and annual subscriptions are available, as well as annual Practice Area subscriptions in the areas of Employment, Family Law, Real Property and Torts. Monty has been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980 and a member of ABOTA since 1995. He currently works as a full-time mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. conducing Zoom hearings throughout California (to use Monty contact his case manager Haward Cho, haward@adrservices. com, (619) 233-1323). Monty also helps lawyers improve their skills and practices with his Lawyer Master Mentoring™ services (for info visit Monty’s web at https:// montymcintyre-law.com).

Lopez v. Ledesma (2022) _ Cal.5th _ , 2022 WL 553421: The California Supreme Court, affirming the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the trial court, held that Code of Civil Procedure, section 3333.2, which limits non-economic damages to $250,000 in a medical malpractice case, applies to a physician assistant who has a legally enforceable agency relationship with a supervising physician and provides services within the scope of that agency relationship, even if the physician violates his or her obligation to provide adequate supervision. (February 24, 2022.)

Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2022) _ Cal.5th _ , 2022 WL 664722: The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s cause of action alleging negligence in defendant’s responses to plaintiff’s loan modification requests. The California Supreme Court ruled that a lender does not owe the borrower a tort duty sounding in general negligence principles to process, review and respond carefully and completely to a borrower’s loan modification application, such that upon a breach of this duty the lender may be liable for the borrower’s economic losses—i.e., pecuniary losses unaccompanied by property damage or personal injury. This type of claim is barred by the economic loss doctrine, a judicially created doctrine that bars recovery in negligence for pure economic losses when such claims would disrupt the parties’ private ordering, render contracts less reliable as a means of organizing commercial relationships, and stifle the development of contract law. (March 7, 2022.)

Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 702912: The Court of Appeal dismissed petitioner’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of administrative mandate seeking to overturn a forty-four (44) hour suspension against him for engaging in speech that was critical of policies implemented by the new Department Chief. The appeal was dismissed because it was not timely filed after the trial court’s original decision denying his writ petition. While the original decision was labeled an “order,” under Dhillon v. John Muir Health (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1109, 1113, it was actually a final judgment. When a court has entered a ruling on a writ petition that constitutes a

final judgment, any party seeking appellate review of that ruling must timely appeal from that final judgment— and the time to file a notice of appeal is not restarted by the trial court’s subsequent entry of a document styled as a “judgment” that merely reiterates the prior final judgment. (C.A. 4th, March 9, 2022.)

Aronow v. Superior Court of San Francisco County (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 896183: The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying plaintiff’s motion for arbitration fees and costs waiver or alternatively to lift the court stay of trial court proceedings pending the conclusion of an arbitration hearing. The trial court had previously granted defendants’ petition to compel arbitration in plaintiff’s action for legal malpractice against his former law firm and attorneys. Recognizing there was a split of authority, the trial court followed the appellate opinion that held a trial court does not have jurisdiction to lift a stay despite a plaintiff’s claim that he cannot afford to pay arbitration fees. (See MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 658–659.) The Court of Appeal ruled that a trial court that grants a defendant’s petition to compel arbitration has jurisdiction to lift the stay of trial court proceedings when a plaintiff demonstrates financial inability to pay the anticipated arbitration costs, and the trial court may then require the defendant to either pay plaintiff’s share of the arbitration costs or waive the right to arbitration. (C.A. 1st, March 28, 2022.)

Eminence Healthcare, Inc. v. Centuri Health Ventures, LLC (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 321011: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order partially denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The parties agreed to arbitrate “any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to” their agreement, “[e] xcept for claims seeking injunctive or other equitable relief.” The trial court properly concluded that plaintiff’s causes of action seeking equitable relief were not subject to arbitration, determined that the resolution of the nonarbitrable equitable claims could make the arbitration unnecessary in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(d), and delayed the arbitration of the other causes of action until after the equitable claims were resolved in the trial court. (C.A. 5th, February 3, 2022.)

Riskin v. Downtown L.A. Property Owners Assn. (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 805377: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff/ petitioner $71,075.75 in attorney fees after she prevailed in her petition under the California Public Records Act (CPRA; Government Code, section 6250 et seq.) seeking to compel respondent to produce certain categories of documents. The trial court believed it had no discretion to deny fees because section 6259(d) provides the court shall award court costs and attorney fees to the requester should the requester prevail in litigation. The Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that the trial court has discretion to deny attorney fees under the CPRA in some circumstances. The trial court has discretion to deny attorney fees when the plaintiff/petitioner obtains only partial relief and obtains documents that are so minimal or insignificant as to justify a finding that the plaintiff/ petitioner did not prevail. The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the trial court to exercise its discretion. (C.A. 2nd, March 17, 2022.)

San Luis Obispo Local etc. v. Central Coast Development etc. (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 324988: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s orders awarding attorney fees of $172,850 to plaintiff/crossdefendant City of Pismo Beach (City) and attorney fees of $428,864 to plaintiff/cross-defendant Central Coast Development Company (Central Coast) after the trial court granted their motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the cross-complaint filed by defendant/crosscomplainant San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) seeking its attorney fees under an indemnity agreement that LAFCO required City and Central Coast to sign when they applied to LAFCO to annex real property into the City. In an earlier appeal (San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Com. v. City of Pismo Beach (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 595), the Court of Appeal determined that the indemnity agreement was not supported by consideration and that LAFCO had no statutory authority to impose an indemnity agreement as a condition of LAFCO’s statutory duty to consider Central Coast’s application. In this appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded that a contract by a public agency that exceeds its statutory powers is void and will not support an award of attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717(a). (C.A.2nd, February 3, 2022.)

Ables v. A. Ghazale Brothers, Inc. (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 326075: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to bring the action to trial within five years as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. In November of 2019, plaintiff filed an ex parte application requesting the trial be continued for at least 6 months, and the trial court granted the request and continued the trial to March of 2021. The trial court properly granted defendants’ motion because the March 2021 trial date fell five years and seven months after the action was commenced, and was not timely under Emergency Rule 10(a) which provides that for civil actions filed before April 6, 2020, the time in which to bring the case to trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 was extended by six months for a total of five years and six months. (C.A.5th, filed January 12, 2022, published February 3, 2022.)

LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 498847: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment for defendant, following a bench trial, in plaintiff’s action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Labor Code, section 2698, et seq.). The trial court properly concluded that the PAGA action was equitable and plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial, and that defendant was not required to provide seating for its cashiers. (C.A.2nd, February 18, 2022.)

Mejia v. Roussos Construction, Inc. (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 883845: The Court of Appeal reversed a judgment for defendant, following a jury trial, in plaintiffs’ action alleging they were employees of defendant, not independent contractors, and therefore were entitled to damages including payment for unpaid wages for each hour worked, overtime wages for overtime hours worked, meal periods, rest breaks and failure to provide accurate pay statements. The Court of Appeal ruled that the ABC test, as articulated in Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, does not include a threshold hiring entity test. As a result, the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that before the ABC test was applied to determine whether plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors, plaintiffs had to first prove they were hired by defendant or an agent of defendant. (C.A. 3rd, March 25, 2022.) n