CA Pub. Decisions

Plaintiff Richard Schoenfeld is currently incarcerated for crimes he committed approximately 35 years ago. On October 30, 2008, the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) found him suitable for parole. On August 14, 2009, at a hearing to calculate his release date under applicable indeterminate sentence law (ISL) regulations, the Board panel stated its disagreement with the 2008 suitability finding and ordered a rescission hearing. It did not calculate an ISL release date. Schoenfeld filed a petition for a writ of ordinary mandamus in superior court challenging the setting of a rescission hearing. He appeals from the judgment denying his petition. As he did below, Schoenfeld contends the 2008 suitability finding was â€

This case arises from the tragic and senseless killings of Anthony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew, who were stopped in traffic in San Francisco when Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant, allegedly shot and killed them. Plaintiffs Danielle, Andrew, and Francesca Bologna are decedents' survivors and next of kin, and appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of defendants the City and County of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, Heather Fong, and William Sifferman (jointly, the City) without leave to amend. The narrow question posed in this appeal is whether the surviving family members can proceed in tort against the City under a theory that San Francisco's policy to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants was a legal cause of decedents' murders because it shielded Ramos from deportation in violation of state and federal statutes. We conclude, as did the trial court, that the alleged breaches of those statutes support neither a legally viable claim of negligence per se under Evidence Code section 669 nor breach of mandatory duties under Government Code section 815.6. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

In response to a paternity action initiated by T.P., T.W. filed a petition under Family Code section 7802 to free her child from the custody and control of T.P., the admitted biological father. The trial court ruled Mother had no standing to commence such a proceeding and entered a judgment denying her petition.
Section 7841, subdivision (a) permits an â€

Appellant Jose T. appeals from a jurisdictional and dispositional order in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 proceeding declaring wardship and committing him to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Appellant contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by automatically imposing a suspended DJJ commitment. Appellant also argues the imposition of this sentence was improper because the court did not consider the appropriateness of less restrictive alternative placements or whether the placement would benefit him. Furthermore, appellant argues that his commitment order should be remanded to the juvenile court for it to determine whether he needs an individualized education plan (IEP). Lastly, appellant contends that his DJJ commitment should be modified in order to accurately reflect previous custody credits and to correct a clerical error. Court conclude that the juvenile court automatically, and erroneously, imposed a previously suspended DJJ commitment. Accordingly, Court vacate the commitment, remand, and direct the lower court to evaluate the appropriate placement for appellant, including whether to impose the previously suspended DJJ commitment, based upon current factors and circumstances.

The defendant in these consolidated class actions appeals from an order denying its motion to disqualify the attorneys for parties who have objected to the proposed settlement agreement in the first of these cases and are the plaintiffs in the second action in which a class has not yet been certified. Court agree with the trial court that the filing of the second action has not created a conflict of interest requiring counsel's disqualification.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Appellant Joyce Turman sued her former employer, respondent Turning Point of Central California, Inc. for gender discrimination based on disparate treatment and a hostile work environment. At the conclusion of the evidence at trial, the court instructed the jury on disparate impact rather than disparate treatment, opining that the evidence produced at trial supported the former. The jury returned a verdict in favor of respondent, specifically finding that respondent did not have an employment practice that had a disproportionate effect on women. In addition, the jury found that while appellant was subjected to a hostile work environment, respondent did not fail to take immediate and corrective action to alleviate the harassment.
On appeal, appellant claims there was not substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that defendant did not fail to take immediate and corrective action to alleviate appellant's hostile work environment. In addition, appellant asserts the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on disparate treatment. Appellant also asks that in the event Court remand the matter for a new trial, that her punitive damages allegations be revived.

Penal Code section 424 provides that each officer of any school district in this state who is charged with the â€

Penal Code section 424 provides that each officer of any school district in this state who is charged with the â€

One of the issues in this appeal from the resentencing of Federico Rosas for two attempted murders of a rival gang member raises a question of first impression in criminal sentencing procedure: Does a trial court, upon appellate remand for resentencing, have the legal authority to make a new restitution fine order, even if the original restitution order was never addressed in the appeal that led to the remand in the first place? Or, alternatively, is the original restitution order â€

Patrick Jennison had a leaky sewer pipe two feet beneath the concrete slab underlying his Newport Beach condo. The homeowner association said he was responsible for the repair bill on the theory that the sewer pipe was â€

A jury convicted defendant Henry Cabrera of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a); all statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated; count 1); attempted second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c), 664; count 2); possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 3); street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 4); evading police while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2; count 5); receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a); count 6); carrying a loaded firearm by a gang member (§ 12031, subd. (a)(1), (2)(c); count 7); and unlawful driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 8.) The jury found true a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)) for counts 1 through 3 and 5 through 7 and that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) while committing counts 1 and 2. In a bench trial the court found that defendant had one prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(1)), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to 30 years to life.
Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support the street terrorism conviction or the gang enhancement and the court erroneously excluded an exculpatory statement which should have been admitted under Evidence Code section 356 and failed to instruct the jury on a crime on which the prosecution relied to prove the gang's primary activity. court affirm.

Plaintiff James Sheppard was a part‑time instructor employed by defendant North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (NOCROP). NOCROP was created by four public school districts. During his employment, Sheppard was required to spend 20 minutes of unpaid time preparing for every hour he spent teaching. Sheppard sued NOCROP and sought compensation for his unpaid preparation time by asserting claims for violation of the minimum wage law, pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission's (IWC) wage order No. 4‑2001 (Wage Order No. 4‑2001)[1] and Labor Code section 218, breach of contract, and quantum meruit. (All further statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise specified.)
Following a series of challenges to Sheppard's pleadings, judgment was entered in favor of NOCROP. Sheppard contends the trial court erred by (1) ordering judgment on the pleadings as to the violation of the minimum wage law claim contained in the first amended complaint; (2) sustaining, without leave to amend, NOCROP's demurrer to Sheppard's breach of contract claim as contained in the original complaint; and (3) sustaining, without leave to amend, NOCROP's demurrer to his quantum meruit claim as contained in the third amended complaint.