CA Pub. Decisions

Portion of Proposition 218, Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which provides that "the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge," grants local voters authority to adopt an initiative measure reducing local public water district's charges for delivering domestic water to existing customers but does not permit use of initiative to require voter pre-approval for future increases in those charges or for imposition of any new charge. Where proposed initiative would have combined a permissible decrease in water rates with an impermissible restraint on future increases, impermissible provision was sufficiently significant to support trial court's ruling that proposed measure could not appear on ballot.

Proposition 64, under which a private person has standing to sue under Unfair Competition Law only if he or she "has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition," applies to cases already pending when Proposition 64 took effect.

Where plaintiff's standing to sue under Unfair Competition Law has been revoked by Proposition 64, trial court may permit plaintiff to amend complaint to satisfy Proposition 64's standing requirements. Plaintiff seeking to establish Proposition 64 standing by amendment to complaint must move for leave to amend. In determining whether to grant such leave and whether such amendment relates back to original filing date so as to avoid bar of statute of limitations, trial court must apply established rules governing leave to amend and relation back of amended complaints.

In a design defect suit against a car manufacturer by driver severely injured in rollover crash, the trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting evidence that the earlier model created by the company contained dangerous design flaws similar to those in driver's later-designed car where evidence was relevant to prove cause of later-designed car's defect and to show company knew it was designing and manufacturing an unsafe vehicle. Court did not err in excluding company's expert testimony regarding comparative rollover rate where evidence that defendant met industry's customs or standards on safety is irrelevant, unreliable and misleading. Noneconomic damages award as remitted by court of approximately $65 million to driver was excessive, resulting from passion and prejudice. It must be reduced to $18 million where remitted award was three-to-five times amount that plaintiffs' counsel suggested to jury was fair, reasonable just.

In a design defect suit against a car manufacturer by driver severely injured in rollover crash, the trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting evidence that the earlier model created by the company contained dangerous design flaws similar to those in driver's later-designed car where evidence was relevant to prove cause of later-designed car's defect and to show company knew it was designing and manufacturing an unsafe vehicle. Court did not err in excluding company's expert testimony regarding comparative rollover rate where evidence that defendant met industry's customs or standards on safety is irrelevant, unreliable and misleading. Noneconomic damages award as remitted by court of approximately $65 million to driver was excessive, resulting from passion and prejudice. It must be reduced to $18 million where remitted award was three-to-five times amount that plaintiffs' counsel suggested to jury was fair, reasonable just.

In a design defect suit against a car manufacturer by driver severely injured in rollover crash, the trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting evidence that the earlier model created by the company contained dangerous design flaws similar to those in driver's later-designed car where evidence was relevant to prove cause of later-designed car's defect and to show company knew it was designing and manufacturing an unsafe vehicle. Court did not err in excluding company's expert testimony regarding comparative rollover rate where evidence that defendant met industry's customs or standards on safety is irrelevant, unreliable and misleading. Noneconomic damages award as remitted by court of approximately $65 million to driver was excessive, resulting from passion and prejudice. It must be reduced to $18 million where remitted award was three-to-five times amount that plaintiffs' counsel suggested to jury was fair, reasonable just.

In a design defect suit against a car manufacturer by driver severely injured in rollover crash, the trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting evidence that the earlier model created by the company contained dangerous design flaws similar to those in driver's later-designed car where evidence was relevant to prove cause of later-designed car's defect and to show company knew it was designing and manufacturing an unsafe vehicle. Court did not err in excluding company's expert testimony regarding comparative rollover rate where evidence that defendant met industry's customs or standards on safety is irrelevant, unreliable and misleading. Noneconomic damages award as remitted by court of approximately $65 million to driver was excessive, resulting from passion and prejudice. It must be reduced to $18 million where remitted award was three-to-five times amount that plaintiffs' counsel suggested to jury was fair, reasonable just.

Purported petition for writ of habeas corpus by prisoner seeking to recover personal property not returned to him or value thereof is properly treated as a petition for writ of mandate and is thus not an action for money damages, which would be subject to the immunity provisions of Government Code Sec. 905.2. Inmate's sworn declaration specifying items of property that were taken from him when he was sent to security housing unit, and stating that such items were taken from him by corrections officers and not returned, and that he had exhausted internal appeals process to obtain return of the items or the value thereof constituted substantial evidence supporting trial court's order that Department of Corrections pay petitioner the stated value of the items.

Purported petition for writ of habeas corpus by prisoner seeking to recover personal property not returned to him or value thereof is properly treated as a petition for writ of mandate and is thus not an action for money damages which would be subject to the immunity provisions of Government Code Sec. 905.2. Inmate's sworn declaration specifying items of property that were taken from him when he was sent to security housing unit, and stating that such items were taken from him by corrections officers and not returned, and that he had exhausted internal appeals process to obtain return of the items or the value thereof constituted substantial evidence supporting trial court's order that Department of Corrections pay petitioner the stated value of the items.

Conviction for participation in a felony on behalf of a criminal street gang; as defined in Penal Code Sec. 186.22(a), does not require proof that defendant committed a separate offense in addition to the underlying gang-related felony. Gang member's possession of a loaded firearm in a public place constitutes felonious criminal conduct within the meaning of Sec. 186.22(a).

November 1998 passage of San Francisco Proposition G, which provides that landlords acquiring a 25 percent or greater interest in property after February 21, 1991, may evict tenants in order to occupy the property themselves, superseded 1998 amendment to city rent ordinance imposing a 50 percent ownership requirement for landlords acquiring property after July 1, 1997.

Where trial court concluded that warrantless search was valid based only on evidence that the defendant was subject to a parole search condition, and intervening California Supreme Court ruling held that such searches are valid only if police knew of the condition, defendant was not entitled to outright reversal of conviction but was entitled to new suppression hearing.

Family Code Sec. 4502(c), which was enacted in 2002 and limits laches defense in child support disputes to those portions of judgment owed to state. Applies retroactively to bar a parent from relying on laches to defend an action to enforce a child support order. Where woman sought to enforce child support order against child's father more than 17 years after it was issued, trial court, after finding that father failed to establish payment of child support, properly denied father's motion to vacate on basis of laches defense.

Lawsuit brought by hospital staff physician arising out of disciplinary recommendation against the physician by the hospital's peer review committee is subject to anti-SLAPP statute. Hospital peer review is an official proceeding under the statute.