Court Filings

The Court of Appeal reversed two convictions and affirmed one from defendant Wayne Hansen Hsiung’s convictions arising from “open rescue” animal-rights protests at Sonoma County poultry farms. The court held the trial court erred by barring a mistake-of-law defense based on defendant’s good-faith (though mistaken) reliance on legal advice that a necessity justification made trespass lawful for rescuing or treating suffering animals; that defect required reversal of the conspiracy count and one trespass count and remand for further proceedings. The court rejected challenges to Penal Code section 31 and to section 602(o) and affirmed the remaining conviction.

The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part. After a 2018 marital dissolution divided a retirement asset, the parties signed a stipulation dividing the remaining proceeds. In 2020 the wife (Nishida) sued the husband (Kamoda) in civil court for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging he misrepresented his employment status to induce the stipulation. The civil court transferred the case to family court, which dismissed as time-barred and denied leave to amend; the Court of Appeal held the dismissal and denial of leave were erroneous because the complaint was timely under Family Code section 2122(a) and transfer resolved any jurisdictional problem. The court affirmed the civil court’s grant of relief from default to Kamoda under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).

The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence of Cary Anthony Stayner for the murders of Carole Sund, her daughters’ friend Silvina Pelosso, and 15-year-old Juli Sund, and related kidnapping. After a jury convicted Stayner of three counts of murder and one count of kidnapping, found multiple special circumstance allegations true, found him sane, and the jury fixed penalty at death, the trial court denied motions for new trial and sentence modification. The high court reviewed guilt, sanity, and penalty-phase claims and concluded the record did not establish reversible error, affirming the judgment in full.

The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded the case of Robert Lopez, convicted in 2007 of murder and related offenses, for further proceedings under Penal Code section 1172.6 (Senate Bill 1437/775). The trial court had denied his resentencing petition after an evidentiary hearing; the Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground Lopez forfeited his instructional-ambiguity claim by not raising it on direct appeal. The Supreme Court held that section 1172.6 does not categorically bar petitions based on jury instruction ambiguity that may have permitted conviction by imputed malice, and ordered the appellate court to consider Lopez’s claims on the merits.

The California Supreme Court held that trial courts may order pretrial detention of noncapital defendants only in the specific circumstances described by article I, section 12 (subdivisions (b) and (c)) of the California Constitution. Where detention is not authorized under section 12, a court may condition release on monetary bail only after an individualized assessment and must set bail in an amount that is reasonable and generally attainable given the defendant’s circumstances. The decision reconciles section 12 with article I, section 28(f)(3), reaffirming that public and victim safety remain primary considerations but do not expand the categories of offenses subject to detention.

The Court of Appeal reversed a superior court judgment that had dismissed a Proposition 65 enforcement lawsuit for inadequate pre-suit notice. The plaintiff, a private enforcer, had sent a 60-day notice that identified the organization and provided contact information for its outside counsel rather than a specific internal “responsible individual.” The appellate court followed a recent decision (Pancho Villa’s) and held the regulation requiring a contact for the noticing entity is directory, not mandatory, and that the notice here substantially complied with the regulation’s purposes (informing prosecutors and giving defendants an opportunity to investigate and cure). The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Christopher Garner’s writ petition after the California Victim Compensation Board rejected his request for compensation under Penal Code section 4900. Garner had his 2007 murder conviction vacated and resentenced under Penal Code section 1172.6, and he sought compensation for time served beyond the revised sentence. The Board denied the claim because Garner did not allege an "erroneous conviction" as required by section 4900 — his original conviction was lawful under the law in effect at the time — and the Board permissibly used a regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 642) to screen and dismiss legally deficient claims without a hearing. The court held the statute and regulation were correctly applied and valid.

The Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court award of attorney fees to environmental group Raptors Are the Solution under California’s private attorney general statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5). Raptors sued the Department of Pesticide Regulation over its renewals and reevaluation decisions for certain rodenticides. Two trade associations (CropLife and RISE) intervened to defend the Department and were held jointly and severally liable for fees along with other defending parties. The appellate court found the associations had asserted direct pecuniary interests when seeking intervention, actively participated in the litigation, and therefore qualified as opposing parties eligible to share fee liability. The court also upheld the trial court’s fee calculation and refusal to apportion liability among defenders.

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 affirmed a trial-court order exonerating a $180,000 bail bond conditioned on payment of extradition costs and later awarding $7,492.40 in extradition expenses to the district attorney. North River (the surety) argued the bond could not be exonerated because the defendant was not physically present when the court acted and that the court lost jurisdiction to order extradition costs. The court held the defendant’s appearance by counsel under Penal Code section 977 satisfied the requirement in section 1305(c)(1) to exonerate the bond, and the court properly ordered extradition costs under section 1306(b).

The Court of Appeal reversed a trial-court grant of summary judgment in a malicious-prosecution suit brought by attorney Brian Detrick against his former client, Keiko Shimada. Shimada had voluntarily dismissed a prior malpractice case and moved for summary judgment, claiming the dismissal was motivated by the statute of limitations (a procedural ground that would bar malicious prosecution). The trial court relied on Shimada’s English-language declaration, but the appellate court held that because Shimada cannot read or speak English the declaration was incompetent absent evidence identifying and qualifying the interpreter/translator and an attestation that the translation accurately reflected Shimada’s words. The judgment for Shimada was reversed and the summary-judgment motion must be denied.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG) in a negligence suit after a bicyclist was struck by SCPMG employee Dr. Brittany Doremus while she was driving to work. The court held SCPMG met its initial burden by submitting uncontradicted deposition evidence that Doremus was on an ordinary morning commute and not performing work when the collision occurred, shifting the burden to the plaintiff, who failed to produce admissible evidence creating a triable issue. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that occasional work-from-home status converted home into a second worksite on the day of the accident.

The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Hensel Phelps and remanded for further proceedings. AVL, a supplier/installer of vehicle emissions testing equipment, sought a declaratory judgment that its claims for payment were not barred by the Contractors State Licensing Law because its equipment did not “become a fixed part of the structure” under Business and Professions Code section 7045. The appellate court held the factual question whether the goods became part of the structure is for a trier of fact; competing expert declarations and voluminous record evidence created a triable issue, so summary judgment was improper.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the district’s anti‑SLAPP motion. The Yolo‑Solano Air Quality Management District sued Diamond D General Engineering and Spencer Defty for alleged permitting and air‑quality violations. Diamond and Defty cross‑complained seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the district relied on a secret internal policy (Policy 24) not adopted through required rulemaking. The appellate court held the cross‑complaint challenged the validity of Policy 24 rather than merely the district’s investigative or enforcement acts, so the claims did not arise from protected petitioning or speech and the anti‑SLAPP motion failed.

The California Supreme Court reversed the juvenile court’s orders terminating a mother’s parental rights to her two young children and remanded for further proceedings. The juvenile court had ended reunification services and set permanency hearings after finding the children likely to be adopted, but the high court held a likelihood-of-adoption finding alone is not enough to terminate parental rights — the court must also make one of the statutory additional findings or find no applicable exception. The Court also held the mother received ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to assert her statutory right to reunification services for one child and failed to pursue writ review, requiring vacation of those orders and a new hearing.

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 (First Appellate District, Div. Three) reviewed a challenge to probation condition no. 24, which allowed the probation department to jail a probationer for up to 120 days if he did not "successfully complete" residential treatment and denied credits for time in unsuccessful programs. Although Emrick’s probation was later terminated and he received the disputed custody credits, the court exercised discretion to decide the issues because they are recurring. The court held the condition impermissibly delegated core judicial authority to probation and was invalid for failing to reflect a knowing waiver of the statutory right to custody credits under Penal Code section 2900.5.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s denial of Blue Origin’s motion to compel arbitration of former employee Craig Stoker’s employment claims. The court found the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable because it was an adhesion contract presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and substantively unconscionable because it was overbroad, lacked mutuality, waived jury trial, and barred representative claims including PAGA-style claims. Because multiple defects tainted the agreement and severance would not cure the one-sided scheme, the court held the arbitration clause unenforceable and affirmed denial of the petition to compel arbitration.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development’s petitions challenging the City of San Ramon’s approval of an infill housing project at Marketplace Center and the city’s finding that the project was categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Citizens argued the project conflicted with the general plan and zoning because a joint “master plan” was allegedly required and the development was not a proper horizontal mixed-use. The court found substantial evidence supported the city’s consistency findings and that CEQA’s in-fill exemption applied, and it upheld the trial court’s award of record-preparation costs to the city.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s denial of a writ petition seeking to stop youth offender parole hearings under Penal Code section 3051 for offenders sentenced under section 667.6’s “full, separate, and consecutive” scheme. Jessica, a victim, challenged section 3051 as an unconstitutional legislative amendment of voter-approved Proposition 83 (which restated and expanded parts of § 667.6). The court held Jessica had standing under Marsy’s Law to challenge the parole hearing, but concluded Proposition 83’s changes to § 667.6(c)–(d) were not substantive and therefore did not prevent the Legislature from enacting § 3051. The petition was denied and the judgment affirmed.

The California Supreme Court held that the Coastal Commission lacked appellate jurisdiction to overturn a San Luis Obispo County grant of a coastal development permit to Shear Development. The Court decided the proper review of the Commission’s jurisdictional claim — which depends on interpreting the county’s certified local coastal program (LCP) — is independent judgment, and no deference was warranted here. Applying the LCP text and extrinsic evidence, the Court concluded the proposed homesite is not in a sensitive coastal resource area and that the Commission’s alternate theory (that jurisdiction exists when a site lists multiple principal permitted uses) is incorrect. The Court reversed and directed issuance of a writ vacating the Commission’s decision and dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal affirmed appellant Dylan James Hardy’s convictions and eight-year split sentence following guilty pleas to multiple firearm offenses. Hardy mounted facial Second Amendment challenges to California statutes banning assault-weapon activity, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, possession of a silencer, large-capacity magazine activity, and unlawful handgun transfer without a licensed dealer. The court rejected those challenges, holding short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and large-capacity magazines are not arms protected by the Second Amendment and that the assault-weapon and transfer regulations do not meaningfully burden the core right to keep and bear arms. The judgment was affirmed and certified for publication.

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 reversed the trial court’s denial of Studebaker Health Care Center’s motion to compel arbitration and directed the trial court to grant the motion. The dispute arose after employee J. Asencion Santana signed three arbitration-related onboarding documents and later sued for wage-and-hour and representative Labor Code claims, including a PAGA claim. The trial court found the arbitration agreement invalid because of alleged conflicts among the documents and unconscionability. The appellate court held the documents, read together, showed a clear mutual intent to arbitrate employment disputes; ambiguities did not defeat arbitration; and any unenforceable PAGA waiver should be severed rather than voiding the entire agreement.

The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that dismissed multiple burglary, theft, and identity-theft charges after a defendant, Keena Landrine, was placed on mental health diversion. Although Landrine made substantial progress while in custody, the appellate court held the diversion statute requires defendants to substantially comply with diversion conditions before charges may be dismissed. Landrine repeatedly violated diversion requirements—relapsing on drugs, refusing recommended detox/treatment, and committing dozens of new criminal offenses—so the trial court abused its discretion by finding satisfactory performance. The matter is remanded for further proceedings on the dismissed charges.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of class certification in a wage-and-hour suit by Adam Martinez against Sierra Lifestar, Inc. Martinez alleged Lifestar excluded nondiscretionary bonuses (notably EMS Week bonuses) when calculating the regular rate of pay, underpaying overtime, double time, and meal/rest premiums for about 135 employees. The trial court denied certification because it found Martinez’s claim was not typical, reasoning he might be uniquely subject to a defense that his EMS Bonus was a gift or discretionary. The appellate court held that defense was not unique to Martinez and remanded for further class-certification proceedings.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of John Anthony Bertsch and Jeffery Lee Hronis for the 1985 murder, rape, and kidnapping of Linda Canady. The court affirmed the death sentence for Bertsch but reversed Hronis’s death sentence and remanded for further penalty-phase proceedings because Hronis was allowed to represent himself at penalty phase without the trial court applying current law assessing competency to self-represent. Both defendants’ convictions remain affirmed. The court also vacated any remaining unpaid balances of $10,000 restitution fines under the statutory 10-year enforcement limit and ordered amended abstracts of judgment.

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 affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting challenges by Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association and Rincon Valley Mobilehome Park. Western argued (1) that during a declared state of emergency the statutory definition of “rental price” allows routine annual CPI rent increases despite Penal Code § 396’s 10% cap, and (2) that after the emergency owners may “recoup” denied CPI increases by resetting future baseline rents. The court held the statute must be read to fix the baseline rental amount as of the emergency declaration, so the 10% cap applies, and Santa Rosa’s rent ordinance does not compel the post-emergency recoupment Western sought.

The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that had authorized involuntary antipsychotic medication for defendant C.F., who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. At the renewal hearing the trial court proceeded without a court reporter because defense counsel failed to request the no-cost reporter available under local rules; the hearing lasted about 13 minutes and the transcript of testimony is therefore missing. The appellate court found defense counsel’s failure to secure a reporter was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial because it eliminated any meaningful appellate review, and because the medication order will expire before a settled statement could be produced, the case is remanded for a new hearing.