Court Filings

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to increase defendant Sami Wayne Mohammed’s sentence after execution of his original sentence had begun. Mohammed initially received an aggregate seven-year, four-month term on January 12, 2024. The CDCR later notified the trial court that parts of that sentence were unauthorized under the Three Strikes law, and the trial court resentenced Mohammed on October 21, 2024 to an aggregate 10 years, eight months. The appellate court concluded the trial court could not lawfully resentence him after jurisdiction had ended, treated the appeal as a habeas petition, granted relief, and ordered reinstatement of the January 12, 2024 sentence.

The Court of Appeal granted Karla Amezcua’s petition for a writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to remove a condition requiring her to pay Massage Envy’s attorney fees as a term of leave to amend her complaint. The trial court had sustained Massage Envy’s demurrer but conditioned granting Amezcua leave to amend on payment of $25,000 in fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The appellate court held section 473 does not authorize shifting attorney fees and that fee-shifting must be grounded in statute or agreement; the trial court therefore erred by imposing a fee condition under section 473.

The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate directing the appellate division to reverse its summary denial and order the superior court to reconsider petitioner Aimee Bobo’s request for misdemeanor diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95. Bobo had been charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter after running a red light and killing another driver. The trial court denied diversion solely because her negligent conduct caused a death. The appellate court held that denial based only on facts inherent in the offense improperly ignored the statute’s rehabilitative purposes and thus was an abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeal granted petitioner Michelle Paknad’s second writ of mandate ordering the Santa Clara Superior Court to vacate its prior order that accepted Intuitive Surgical’s redactions of investigator Andrea Smethurst’s reports and related investigative materials. The court held Intuitive had waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection by placing the scope and adequacy of the investigations at issue in defending Paknad’s employment discrimination and retaliation claims. The court directed the trial court to conduct further in camera review and to disclose all factual findings and other information relevant to the investigations’ scope or adequacy, even if that material would otherwise qualify as core work product.

The Court of Appeal granted the People’s petition for a writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to vacate its August 12, 2025 denial of an amended statement of disqualification (ASD) and to disqualify Judge Samah Shouka. The People sought disqualification because Judge Shouka had been a Riverside County deputy district attorney in the homicide unit and had participated in staffing and charging decisions relevant to a pending Racial Justice Act evidentiary hearing about whether the district attorney’s office disproportionately files death-penalty or special-circumstance charges. The appellate court concluded that a person aware of those facts might reasonably doubt the judge’s ability to be impartial, requiring disqualification under CCP §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).

The Court of Appeal granted Alonzo Devon Melson’s petition for habeas corpus and vacated his conviction for crimes arising from a 2017 gang-related shooting. The court found that two prosecution eyewitnesses gave trial testimony that was false about what they had told police after the shooting, and the prosecutor failed to correct those statements. Defense counsel at the retrial also failed to adequately prepare to impeach those witnesses. Under controlling precedent, the false testimony was material and the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt it did not contribute to the verdict.

The Court of Appeal granted The Merchant of Tennis’s petition for extraordinary writ and directed the trial court to modify its curative notice scheme regarding roughly 954 individual settlement agreements (ISAs) obtained by Merchant from putative class members. The trial court had found the ISAs voidable as procured by fraud or coercion and ordered a curative notice advising members they could rescind and join the class without having to immediately return settlement payments (though payments could be offset against any later recovery). The appellate majority concluded the trial court must follow California rescission statutes and preserved the judgment, adding that each side bear its own costs on appeal.