CA Pub. Decisions

Employer has no obligation to make accommodations to permit employee who has taken leave under California Family Rights Act to return to work within the allowed leave period; where employee did not return within the 12-week period to which she was entitled, employer was entitled to terminate her at-will employment as a matter of law. Where employment was terminated for performance-related reasons, which plaintiff failed to show were pretextual or discriminatory, plaintiff failed to establish a triable issue on her claim that she was terminated in retaliation for exercising her rights under CFRA. Public policy protecting workers' rights to receive all earned wages does not prohibit employer from implementing bonus plan in which bonuses are paid only to persons employed by company on payout date, thus permitting employer to avoid payment of bonuses to employees terminated for cause between end of fiscal year in which bonus was earned and the payout date.

A modification decision.

A mechanic’s lien cannot be enforced against property owned by a municipality regardless of whether work was performed as part of a public work project. A contractor cannot recover in quantum meruit for improvements to a municipality’s property performed under a contract with a third party. Judgment Affirmed.

Where parolee was convicted of lewd conduct with a child under the age of 14, and parolee encrypted his hard drive to prevent authorities from searching his computer while he was on probation previously, condition placed on parole prohibiting parolee from possessing or having access to computers, the Internet, or camera equipment without permission from his parole officer was reasonable and appropriate. Reversed and remanded with directions to deny the petition.

Temporary exclusion of two friends of defendant during testimony of child witness did not deprive defendant of constitutional right to a public trial. Trial court erred in imposing both a 10-20-Life enhancement and a great bodily injury enhancement for shooting of one the victims.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Where defendant gave written consent to insurer to settle malpractice suit, and settlement offer was made to plaintiff at mediation and was accepted, but while mediator reduced settlement to writing, defendant revoked her consent and left without signing settlement, parties entered into enforceable oral settlement agreement. Once a party voluntarily declares certain facts to be true and extensively litigates the legal effect of such facts, party is estopped to later claim that the court must disregard those facts based on a belated assertion of mediation confidentiality. Opinion modified with no change in judgment.

There was substantial evidence to support defendant’s kidnapping convictions on the ground that his movement of the victims was not merely incidental to attempted robbery where defendant, after aborting his robbery attempt, herded the victims at gunpoint approximately 10 feet from a public area to a small back office without windows and with a solid door; pulled what he believed to be a telephone cord out of the wall when one of the victims tried to call the police; threatened to shoot the victims if they left the office; and did not move the victims to facilitate the taking of the money he sought to obtain. Judgment Affirmed.

Where defendant gave written consent to insurer to settle malpractice suit, and settlement offer was made to plaintiff at mediation and was accepted, but while mediator reduced settlement to writing, defendant revoked her consent and left without signing settlement, parties entered into enforceable oral settlement agreement. Once a party voluntarily declares certain facts to be true and extensively litigates the legal effect of such facts, party is estopped to later claim that the court must disregard those facts based on a belated assertion of mediation confidentiality.

Where defendant gave written consent to insurer to settle malpractice suit, and settlement offer was made to plaintiff at mediation and was accepted, but while mediator reduced settlement to writing, defendant revoked her consent and left without signing settlement, parties entered into enforceable oral settlement agreement. Once a party voluntarily declares certain facts to be true and extensively litigates the legal effect of such facts, party is estopped to later claim that the court must disregard those facts based on a belated assertion of mediation confidentiality.

Where defendant gave written consent to insurer to settle malpractice suit, and settlement offer was made to plaintiff at mediation and was accepted, but while mediator reduced settlement to writing, defendant revoked her consent and left without signing settlement, parties entered into enforceable oral settlement agreement. Once a party voluntarily declares certain facts to be true and extensively litigates the legal effect of such facts, party is estopped to later claim that the court must disregard those facts based on a belated assertion of mediation confidentiality.

Where defendant gave written consent to insurer to settle malpractice suit, and settlement offer was made to plaintiff at mediation and was accepted, but while mediator reduced settlement to writing, defendant revoked her consent and left without signing settlement, parties entered into enforceable oral settlement agreement. Once a party voluntarily declares certain facts to be true and extensively litigates the legal effect of such facts, party is estopped to later claim that the court must disregard those facts based on a belated assertion of mediation confidentiality.

Where law firm concurrently represented two related entities, each in an entirely separate legal action, but did not represent either entity in a third matter in which one entity sued the other for unjust enrichment, disqualification of firm based on concurrent representation of parties with conflicting interests was not warranted. Where law firm previously represented one of the entities in a legal malpractice action to which the other related entity was not a party, and the entity that firm represented in the legal malpractice action did not show that information firm purportedly gained regarding entity's litigation philosophy and practices was material to unjust enrichment action, disqualification of firm based on prior representation of a party in a substantially related matter was not warranted.