CA Pub. Decisions

The Mello-Roos Act itself also supports the conclusion that payment of proceeds from Mello-Roos bonds by the CFD constitutes a payment of money by a political subdivision of the state to a developer. The Act is â€

Azusa Land Partners (ALP) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.) ALP seeks to vacate a determination by respondent Department of Industrial Relations (Department) that a planned community project is a â€

This case involves a dispute among property owners in a general plan development of 68 homes in Los Angeles. The owners of one of the properties, Allan Ignatin and Janet Sobell (collectively, Ignatin),[1] want to build a house that other property owners believe would violate recorded restrictions (CC&Rs) governing the development. The owners of a neighboring property, Philip Schuman and Margaret McNulty (collectively, Schuman), filed a lawsuit against Ignatin, seeking to block the proposed construction. Ignatin cross-complained against Schuman and several other property owners, including Eric F. Edmunds, Jr. and Debora Edmunds (collectively, Edmunds), seeking a determination that the proposed house would not violate the CC&Rs. Edmunds, in turn, filed a cross-complaint against Ignatin, alleging that the proposed house would violate the CC&Rs, create a nuisance, and violate city codes and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
During a recess after the first day of a bench trial, Ignatin for the first time challenged the validity of a recorded amendment that purportedly extended the duration date set forth in the original CC&Rs, and asked the trial court to find that the CC&Rs expired on January 1, 1999, the original expiration date. The trial court made that finding, entered judgment in favor of Ignatin on Schuman's complaint, and dismissed Ignatin's and Edmunds's cross-complaints as moot. Schuman, Edmunds, and Ignatin all appeal: Schuman and Edmunds challenge, among other things, the trial court's finding that the CC&Rs expired, arguing that the applicable statute of limitations bars Ignatin's assertion that the amendment of the CC&Rs was invalid, and Ignatin challenges the dismissal of Ignatin's cross-complaint as moot. We conclude that Ignatin's assertion of the invalidity of the amendment is time-barred. Accordingly, Coutrt reverse the judgment and remand the matter for retrial, at which Ignatin may present other asserted defenses against Schuman's and Edmunds's claims and seek the relief sought in Ignatin's cross-complaint.

These appeals, consolidated on this court's motion, follow the trial court's entry of an order awarding the City of Santa Rosa and the People of the State of California (collectively, the City) attorney fees in this red light abatement action. In appeal No. A124199, the City contends that the court erred in using a cost-plus approach rather than the lodestar method in calculating the amount of the attorney fees award. In appeal No. A124452, the Patels[1] argue that the court erred in awarding fees because the City lacked standing to pursue the underlying action and that, in any event, the fee award should be modified as the City's judgment in the underlying case was modified on appeal. We conclude that the trial court erred in not using the lodestar method to calculate the fee award and, therefore, remand the matter to the trial court for a recalculation of the fee award. Court will dismiss appeal No. A124452 as moot.

Charter schools are public schools that operate independently from, but with oversight by, the school districts or county boards of education that approve their charters. Before 2002, charter schools operated without geographic restrictions; a school chartered in Los Angeles could operate â€

Charter schools are public schools that operate independently from, but with oversight by, the school districts or county boards of education that approve their charters. Before 2002, charter schools operated without geographic restrictions; a school chartered in Los Angeles could operate â€

This is a consolidated appeal in one of several coordinated class actions that challenge wireless telephone carriers' imposition of early termination fees (ETF's) on customers seeking to cancel cellular telephone contracts. The defendant/respondent in this proceeding is Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless (Verizon). The case against Verizon (White v. Cellco Partnership (RG04‑137699) (White)) proceeded to jury trial on June 16, 2008, in the Alameda County Superior Court on the claims of California class members. On July 8, 2008, after plaintiffs/respondents[1] had rested their case and the defense presentation had commenced, the parties advised the court that they had signed a memorandum of understanding outlining the terms of settlement. The settlement also encompassed claims of nationwide certified class claimants (excluding California class members) in a proceeding then pending before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), as well as two actions filed in federal district courts.

This is a consolidated appeal in one of several coordinated class actions that challenge wireless telephone carriers' imposition of early termination fees (ETF's) on customers seeking to cancel cellular telephone contracts. The defendant/respondent in this proceeding is Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless (Verizon). The case against Verizon (White v. Cellco Partnership (RG04‑137699) (White)) proceeded to jury trial on June 16, 2008, in the Alameda County Superior Court on the claims of California class members. On July 8, 2008, after plaintiffs/respondents[1] had rested their case and the defense presentation had commenced, the parties advised the court that they had signed a memorandum of understanding outlining the terms of settlement. The settlement also encompassed claims of nationwide certified class claimants (excluding California class members) in a proceeding then pending before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), as well as two actions filed in federal district courts.

In this proposed class action, plaintiffs allege defendant cell phone providers, Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Cingular Wireless LLC (collectively defendants) violated the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof., § 17200 et seq.) by selling â€

Appellant D.G., a ward of the court, was placed on juvenile probation after he and another person were seen burglarizing a home. Neither appellant's current burglary nor his past offenses were committed near a school or involved classmates or other juveniles. Yet in imposing probation, the juvenile court included a condition prohibiting appellant from coming within 150 feet of any school campus other than the school he is attending. Appellant contends the imposition of this condition was an abuse of the court's discretion because it is unrelated to his current or past offenses or to his possible future criminality and is vague and overbroad, thereby improperly burdening his constitutional right to travel.
We conclude the condition as drawn was unreasonable because it is not related to appellant's offenses and does not prohibit otherwise criminal conduct and because there is no evidence in the record to suggest the condition will serve a rehabilitative purpose by preventing his future criminality. We narrow the condition consistent with state law that prohibits persons from visiting school grounds without notifying school authorities and affirm the court's dispositional order as so modified.

A modification decision.

The story of Leland Wong (Wong) is one of graft and hubris. Wrongly believing he could get away with lying, cheating and stealing, he ended up convicted of multiple crimes, including embezzling money (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)),[1] accepting a bribe
(§ 68); acting with a conflict of interest (Gov. Code, § 1090); and committing perjury
(§ 118). He appeals and assigns error on the theory that the embezzlement convictions are barred by the statute of limitations, and the bribery, conflict of interest and perjury convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence. Among other questions presented by this appeal is the following: Is it legal for a commissioner in one city department to take money from a third party to influence contract negotiations with a different department in the same city? The answer is no. After review, we conclude that the challenged convictions must stand.

Plaintiff brought this action against a number of public entities and a railroad claiming the defendants caused his property to flood when it rained. The complaint alleged inverse condemnation and tort causes of action. The inverse condemnation cause of action was tried to the court. After plaintiff's case, the trial court granted nonsuit based on the statute of limitations, failure to prove causation, and a determination that the railroad is not a public entity. Thereafter, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the tort causes of action. The court granted the motion based on the trial court's previous finding of lack of causation and the statute of limitations. Court affirm.

The superior court entered a judgment nullifying the marriage of appellant Xiao Hua Sun and respondent Xia Guo on the ground that Sun was married to another woman when he purportedly married Guo. The court also denied Sun's claim that he was Guo's putative spouse pursuant to Family Code section 2251. Sun appeals the order denying his putative spouse claim.