CA Pub. Decisions

Yvette Lujano, through her guardian ad litem, Maria del Carmen Lujano, appeals an order granting summary judgment to the County of Santa Barbara (County) and two Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department deputies on her complaint for false arrest and use of excessive force. Court affirm.

This case implicates the privacy rights of Los Angeles County employees who are not Union members and their ability to control the dissemination of their personal information to the Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (the Union), which has a statutory duty to represent even these non-member County employees. The County of Los Angeles, Chief Executive Office, appeals from the denial of its petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), in which it asserted the privacy rights of these non-member County employees and challenged the decision by the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (Commission) that ordered the County to release their names, home addresses, and home telephone numbers to the Union.
The trial court concluded the Commission erred by applying the traditional labor law presumption in favor of disclosure. Nevertheless, the trial court upheld the Commission's decision to disclose the non-members' personal information under California privacy law, applying the balancing test set forth in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40 (Hill). The trial court, however, ordered disclosure of the non-members' personal information without due consideration to procedural protections afforded to third parties whose privacy rights are at stake. (See Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 371-372 (Pioneer Electronics).)

This case implicates the privacy rights of Los Angeles County employees who are not Union members and their ability to control the dissemination of their personal information to the Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (the Union), which has a statutory duty to represent even these non-member County employees. The County of Los Angeles, Chief Executive Office, appeals from the denial of its petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), in which it asserted the privacy rights of these non-member County employees and challenged the decision by the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (Commission) that ordered the County to release their names, home addresses, and home telephone numbers to the Union.
The trial court concluded the Commission erred by applying the traditional labor law presumption in favor of disclosure. Nevertheless, the trial court upheld the Commission's decision to disclose the non-members' personal information under California privacy law, applying the balancing test set forth in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40 (Hill). The trial court, however, ordered disclosure of the non-members' personal information without due consideration to procedural protections afforded to third parties whose privacy rights are at stake. (See Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 371-372 (Pioneer Electronics).)

The trial court dismissed the action filed by plaintiff and appellant Shanel Stasz against defendants and respondents Michael Eisenberg[1] and Bernard A. Burk, after Stasz failed to pay costs and attorney fees ordered when the court transferred the action to San Francisco pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 399, subdivision (a).[2] Stasz argues on appeal she was not required to pay the transfer fee because she was never served with notice of finality of the order under section 399, the motion to dismiss was untimely, and she was deprived of her due process right to file a motion for reconsideration.
Court affirm. Stasz was not entitled to notice of finality of the transfer order under section 399, subdivision (a), because she did not challenge the order by way of writ of mandate. In addition, Court reject the arguments that the motion to dismiss was not timely filed and Stasz was improperly denied an opportunity to seek reconsideration.

Brandon Favor appeals from his conviction on one count of first degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, and two counts of second degree robbery. He claims there was insufficient evidence to support the true finding on the robbery-murder special circumstance or the findings that the attempted murders were willful, deliberate and premeditated. He also claims the court erred by instructing the jury on the natural and probable consequences doctrine as to the nontarget offense of attempted murder, but not as to the nontarget offense of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder. Appellant challenges the California death penalty law, claiming the proliferation of special circumstances has undermined the narrowing function required of California law, and claims his life without parole sentence constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment. Appellant and respondent ask that an error in the abstract of judgment be corrected, and we so order.
In the published portion of this opinion, Court conclude the instructions were sufficient with respect to the natural and probable consequences doctrine as applied to attempted willful, deliberated and premeditated murder. In the nonpublished portion of this opinion, Court find no error other than that contained in the abstract of judgment, and Court affirm the judgment as modified.

In the published portion of this decision, we address the primary issue in this appeal--whether a trust deed securing a promissory note issued in connection with a family law judgment may expire under provisions of the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA, Civ. Code, § 880.020 et seq.) despite Family Code section 291, which provides that a family law judgment is enforceable until paid in full. Appellant Betty Louise Stein argues the trial court erred in ruling that she could not enforce the trust deed under the MRTA after more than 10 years had elapsed since the note secured by the trust deed had matured. She contends that the purpose of the Family Code is thwarted by allowing the security for the family law judgment to expire under the MRTA.
We conclude that the trial court properly harmonized the Family Code provision and the MRTA by holding that the debt evidenced by the note and secured by the deed of trust is still owed even though the note had expired under the MRTA and the deed of trust was no longer enforceable. We also reject respondent Wayne Schelb's argument that the family law judgment should not be enforced under the terms of Family Code section 4, subdivision (h).
In the nonpublished portion of this opinion, Court conclude that Mr. Schelb's argument that the trial court erred by failing to address his claim that a modification of the family law judgment constituted an accord and satisfaction is unsupported by the evidence and is contrary to the terms of the modification. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining there was no prevailing party to warrant an award of attorney fees.

A jury rejected Mitchell Grobeson's claims that the City of Los Angeles (City) and Daniel Watson unlawfully retaliated against Grobeson in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) and Labor Code section 1101 et seq.; that City and Watson unlawfully discriminated against Grobeson and harassed him in violation of the aforesaid statutes; that City constructively discharged Grobeson; and that appellant Watson unlawfully retaliated against Grobeson and harassed him in violation of FEHA and Labor Code section 1101 et seq.
The trial court granted Grobeson's motion for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct as to the discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge claims in City's instance and also on the retaliation claim against Watson. The appeal is from this order.

In 2007, the County of Sonoma (the County) enacted Ordinance No. 5715 (the Ordinance) governing the zoning of medical cannabis dispensaries. One provision of the Ordinance required dispensaries to obtain permits to operate. In September 2009, real parties in interest Marvin Gardens Cooperative, Inc., and Terry Worden (collectively, the Cooperative) opened a medical cannabis dispensary in the town of Guerneville. The County thereafter issued a stop order to the Cooperative because it had not received the required permit for its Guerneville location. The Cooperative closed the dispensary and then sued the County challenging the validity of the Ordinance.
The trial court ultimately sustained the Cooperative's challenge, holding that the Ordinance violated the Cooperative's right to equal protection of the laws. In two separate orders, the trial court invalidated the Ordinance and issued a writ of mandate prohibiting the County from enforcing it. The County now seeks a writ of mandate compelling respondent superior court to vacate and set aside portions of those orders. Among other things, the County claims the Cooperative's action was untimely because it was not brought within 90 days of the Ordinance's enactment and is thus barred by Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(B).[1] We agree with the County's limitations argument and will therefore direct the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate.

S.O. (father) appeals from an order that terminated the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court over his children, T.H. and V.O., and placed them in the physical custody of their mother, S.S. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4.)[1] The judgment included an exit order allowing supervised visitation by father â€

S.O. (father) appeals from an order that terminated the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court over his children, T.H. and V.O., and placed them in the physical custody of their mother, S.S. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4.)[1] The judgment included an exit order allowing supervised visitation by father â€

Appellant S.C. (mother) appeals from orders dismissing dependency jurisdiction as to her children Grace C. and Angelo C. after relatives were appointed as legal guardians for the minors. Mother claims that (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion by dismissing dependency, (2) the court improperly delegated discretion to the minors' legal guardians and therapist over visitation, and (3) respondent Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1979 (25 U.S.C.A. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). Court affirm.

Following a bench trial, a judgment was entered that granted in part and denied in part the petition for writ of mandate filed by Marleen Sacks (petitioner or Sacks), in which she contested the allocation and use of tax revenue collected by the City of Oakland (respondent or the City) pursuant to Measure Y, an ordinance enacted by the voters to add neighborhood beat officers to the police department, among other purposes. The City has filed an appeal from part of the judgment that declared impermissible the use of Measure Y funds to hire and train new officers to replace those assigned to the neighborhood beat positions, and directed the respondent to refund Measure Y revenue allocated to the impermissible use. In her appeal from the judgment petitioner asks us to reverse the part of the judgment that denied relief in the nature of a declaration that the City is required to maintain a police staff of 802 officers, including six crime reduction team officers. In a second appeal petitioner claims that she was entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and the common fund doctrine.
Court conclude that the City did not make an impermissible use of Measure Y funds by indirectly hiring and training new officers to replace veteran officers who were assigned to the neighborhood beat positions added by the ordinance. We further conclude that the City was required to appropriate funds, but not actually staff the police force, with the minimum number of officers specified by Measure Y. Finally, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner an award of attorney fees. Court therefore reverse the judgment in part, and affirm the denial of the award of attorney fees.

Following a bench trial, a judgment was entered that granted in part and denied in part the petition for writ of mandate filed by Marleen Sacks (petitioner or Sacks), in which she contested the allocation and use of tax revenue collected by the City of Oakland (respondent or the City) pursuant to Measure Y, an ordinance enacted by the voters to add neighborhood beat officers to the police department, among other purposes. The City has filed an appeal from part of the judgment that declared impermissible the use of Measure Y funds to hire and train new officers to replace those assigned to the neighborhood beat positions, and directed the respondent to refund Measure Y revenue allocated to the impermissible use. In her appeal from the judgment petitioner asks us to reverse the part of the judgment that denied relief in the nature of a declaration that the City is required to maintain a police staff of 802 officers, including six crime reduction team officers. In a second appeal petitioner claims that she was entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and the common fund doctrine.
Court conclude that the City did not make an impermissible use of Measure Y funds by indirectly hiring and training new officers to replace veteran officers who were assigned to the neighborhood beat positions added by the ordinance. Court further conclude that the City was required to appropriate funds, but not actually staff the police force, with the minimum number of officers specified by Measure Y. Finally, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner an award of attorney fees. We therefore reverse the judgment in part, and affirm the denial of the award of attorney fees.

Several organizations dedicated to providing advocacy, education and support services in the field of mental health[1] and several individuals who have been recipients of assistance from the former Homeless Adults Program, appeal from the denial of their petition for a writ of mandate to compel the State of California[2] to reinstitute that program. Appellants contend that the removal from the state's budget of funding for the Homeless Adults Program, which occurred as the result of a gubernatorial veto in 2007, violates the provisions of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which was approved by the voters as Proposition 63 on the November 2004 ballot. That measure imposed a new tax to fund the expansion of mental health services and added to the Welfare and Institutions Code[3] section 5891 which, as originally enacted, reads as follows: â€