CA Pub. Decisions

Defendants and petitioners Walnut Valley Unified School District and the Board of Education of the Walnut Valley Unified School District (collectively, Walnut), seek a writ of mandate directing respondent superior court to vacate its order granting a petition for peremptory writ of mandate and/or prohibition (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085, 1102) brought by plaintiff and real party in interest Rowland Unified School District (Rowland) and to enter a new order denying Rowland's petition.
The trial court's ruling precluded Walnut from enrolling for the 2010-2011 school year any students residing within Rowland's boundaries pursuant to the District of Choice program. (Ed. Code, § 48300 et seq.) This is a dispute between two school districts which are competing for students and for the funding those students would bring to the district in which they are enrolled. The District of Choice program (added by Stats. 1993, ch. 160; form. § 48209 et seq.), authorizes a school district to declare itself a â€

Defendant, Tyrone Sharret, appeals from his conviction for possession for sale (count 1) and sale (count 2) of heroin. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351, 11352, subd. (a).) Defendant admitted the truth of the allegations of three prior separate prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and a prior drug conviction. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a).) Defendant gave heroin to another person. That person in turn handed the heroin to another individual. That individual handed the heroin to an undercover police officer. Thereafter, defendant was arrested, searched and found to be in possession of even more heroin and $107 in cash.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for six years--three years on count 2, plus a three-year enhancement under Health and Safety Code, section 11370.2, subdivision (a). Pursuant to Penal Code section 654, subdivision (a) (section 654), the trial court orally imposed but stayed a two-year sentence on count 1. As to count 1, the trial court also orally imposed a $30 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)), which were ordered to run â€

A modification decision.

As alleged in this case, plaintiff, a married woman, obtained an adjustable rate loan from a bank to purchase real property secured by a deed of trust on her residence. About two years into the loan, she could not afford the monthly payments and filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 701–784). She intended to convert the chapter 7 proceeding to a chapter 13 proceeding (11 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1330) and to enlist the financial assistance of her husband to reinstate the loan, pay the arrearages, and resume the regular loan payments.
Plaintiff contacted the bank, which promised to work with her on a loan reinstatement and modification if she would forgo further bankruptcy proceedings. In reliance on that promise, plaintiff did not convert her bankruptcy case to a chapter 13 proceeding or oppose the bank's motion to lift the bankruptcy stay. While the bank was promising to work with plaintiff, it was simultaneously complying with the notice requirements to conduct a sale under the power of sale in the deed of trust, commonly referred to as a nonjudicial foreclosure or foreclosure. (See Civ. Code, §§ 2924, 2924a–2924k.)
The bankruptcy court lifted the stay. But the bank did not work with plaintiff in an attempt to reinstate and modify the loan. Rather, it completed the foreclosure.
Plaintiff filed this action against the bank, alleging a cause of action for promissory estoppel, among others. She argued the bank's promise to work with her in reinstating and modifying the loan was enforceable, she had relied on the promise by forgoing bankruptcy protection under chapter 13, and the bank subsequently breached its promise by foreclosing. The trial court dismissed the case on demurrer.
We conclude (1) plaintiff could have reasonably relied on the bank's promise to work on a loan reinstatement and modification if she did not seek relief under chapter 13, (2) the promise was sufficiently concrete to be enforceable, and (3) plaintiff's decision to forgo chapter 13 relief was detrimental because it allowed the bank to foreclose on the property. Contrary to the bank's contention that plaintiff's use of the Bankruptcy Code was ipso facto bad faith, chapter 13 is â€

The juvenile court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1] finding true the felony charge that minor Brandon T. committed the crime of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). The court declared Brandon to be a ward of the court and ordered him to be placed at home on probation. Brandon appeals from the adjudication/disposition order.
Brandon's counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On March 11, 2010, we advised Brandon that he personally had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Court also directed his appointed counsel to send the record and opening brief to Brandon immediately. Court received no response.

A creditor of a bankrupt corporation sought to recover payment in state court from an individual based on an alter ego theory of liability. The individual argued that the alter ego claim belonged to the bankruptcy estate, because it alleged general injuries to the corporation that could establish a basis of liability for all corporate debts, and therefore, the state court action should be stayed. The trial court allowed the action to proceed to trial and found in favor of the creditor. On appeal, the individual contends that the action should have been stayed and the trial court erred at trial.
In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that the creditor's action to hold the individual liable as an alter ego for a creditor's substantive causes of action against a bankrupt corporation was not the property of the bankruptcy estate. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, Court conclude that the record on appeal is inadequate to review the contentions of error at trial. Court affirm.

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), on the eve of a hearing to terminate parental rights to the minor (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) and determine whether the child's foster parents should be designated prospective adoptive parents (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (n)), the child's mother filed a relinquishment of her parental rights, designating the child's maternal aunt as the person with whom she intended the child to be placed for adoption (Fam. Code § 8700, subd. (f)). Despite having been granted numerous opportunities to visit with the child, the aunt had failed to form a bond with the child, who was quite attached to the foster parents with whom he had spent much of his life. Nonetheless, the aunt, the mother, and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) sought the immediate placement of the child with the aunt, a position which brought them in conflict with the foster parents and the minor. At the hearing, the dependency court apparently believed that its hands were tied by the mother's designated relinquishment. Upon receipt of the official acknowledgement of mother's relinquishment, the court immediately terminated the hearing, and lifted its previous order which had prevented DCFS from removing the child from the foster parents' home without court approval.
In these consolidated appeals, we review three earlier orders of the dependency court, as well as its order lifting its â€

Plaintiffs Adolfo Arzate and Juan Ortiz, members of the Teamsters Union who own their own trucks, brought this wage and hour class action on behalf of truck drivers who were paid by defendant Bridge Terminal Transport, Inc., to transport cargo between ports and the facilities of defendant's customers. Plaintiffs alleged they were defendant's employees, and asserted causes of action under the Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due upon discharge, and failure to provide itemized wage statements, along with a cause of action for unfair business practices.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs were independent contractors, not employees. The trial court granted defendant's motion and entered judgment for defendant. Court reverse the judgment.

A verdict may be overturned and a new trial granted for jury misconduct demonstrated by the sworn affidavit of a juror. In this case, both the defense and prosecution presented unsworn statements of jurors on the issue of jury misconduct, and at the urging of the trial court, the parties agreed to waive any objection to the unsworn statements in order to allow the court to reach the merits of the issue. In other words, defense counsel and the prosecutor agreed that 13 unsworn juror statements had been made under penalty of perjury. Based upon the unsworn juror statements, the court found misconduct occurred when a juror accessed the internet by cellular phone for a definition of reasonable doubt and when the jury considered punishment. The court denied the motion for new trial, without holding an evidentiary hearing, ruling that the presumption of prejudice arising from jury misconduct was rebutted.
In light of the policy in favor of upholding the integrity of jury verdicts, and the complimentary rule that jury misconduct may warrant a new trial when shown by sworn juror affidavits, we hold that a new trial may not be granted in the absence of sworn juror affidavits establishing misconduct. Because of the nature of the misconduct asserted in this case, we remand the matter to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of jury misconduct in accordance with settled law.

In the underlying action, appellant Jordy Ezequiel Ochoa was charged with possession of a firearm as a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)).[1] Prior to his trial, he sought discovery under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). After the jury in appellant's first trial was unable to reach a verdict on the charge, the trial court declined to revoke appellant's probation, and appellant was convicted of the charge after a second trial. Appellant contends that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the ruling on his probation barred the second trial; in addition, he requests this court independently review the in camera proceeding conducted pursuant to Pitchess, to determine whether the trial court improperly denied disclosure of discoverable information. Court reject the contention regarding the application of collateral estoppel, and following a review of the in camera proceeding, find no error under Pitchess. Court therefore affirm.

In 2008, the County of Orange (Orange County or the County) sued the board of the County's retirement plan, claiming that an enhanced retirement formula for prior years of service adopted in 2001 by the County Board of Supervisors violated the California Constitution. The County now appeals from the trial court's grant of motions for judgment on the pleadings and entry of judgment in favor of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and the Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees' Retirement System. Court conclude that the past service portion of the enhanced retirement formula does not violate the Constitution, and Court affirm.

In 2008, the County of Orange (Orange County or the County) sued the board of the County's retirement plan, claiming that an enhanced retirement formula for prior years of service adopted in 2001 by the County Board of Supervisors violated the California Constitution. The County now appeals from the trial court's grant of motions for judgment on the pleadings and entry of judgment in favor of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and the Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees' Retirement System. Court conclude that the past service portion of the enhanced retirement formula does not violate the Constitution, and Court affirm.

Appellant Hypertouch, Inc. filed an action alleging that ValueClick, Inc., various ValueClick subsidiaries and PrimaryAds, Inc. (Respondents) violated Business & Professions Code section 17529.5[1], subdivision (a), which prohibits entities from advertising in a commercial electronic message that contains various types of deceptive content. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellant's claims were preempted by the â€

Appellant Hypertouch, Inc. filed an action alleging that ValueClick, Inc., various ValueClick subsidiaries and PrimaryAds, Inc. (Respondents) violated Business & Professions Code section 17529.5[1], subdivision (a), which prohibits entities from advertising in a commercial electronic message that contains various types of deceptive content. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellant's claims were preempted by the â€