CA Pub. Decisions

Property owners whose homes were destroyed or damaged in the 2007 Corral Canyon fire sued the State of California on theories of dangerous condition of public property and nuisance. The trial court sustained the State of California's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action. Court affirm the judgment.

Attorneys who jointly represent clients in the same action owe a duty of undivided loyalty to each of their clients and are subject to disqualification if an unwaivable conflict exists arising from the joint representation. We address whether a non-client may enforce this duty of loyalty and move to disqualify opposing counsel. In this case, the parties seeking disqualification were not present clients, former clients, or prospective clients, and they had no prior confidential relationship with opposing counsel. They moved to disqualify opposing counsel Graham & Associates, and Bruce N. Graham, a member of the firm (Graham), from jointly representing their adversaries, appellants Jim and Maartje Burman (the Burmans) and Ted Kipers. The moving parties acknowledge that their motion is not based upon California law, but rather on what they refer to as a minority view in Colyer v. Smith (C.D.Cal. 1999) 50 F.Supp.2d 966, permitting a non-client to move to disqualify opposing counsel. While the decision of a federal district court is not binding on this Court, we do not read Colyer's minority rule as dispensing with the standing requirements. Here, the non-client, moving parties have no legally cognizable interest in Graham's undivided loyalty to his clients. Therefore, the moving parties lacked standing to bring this motion to disqualify. Court reverse the disqualification order.

California's long-arm statute permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction â€

California's long-arm statute permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction â€

This appeal challenges an award of attorney's fees to an employer who successfully defended against allegations of labor law violations brought by two former employees. Appellants Anthony Kirby and Rick Leech, Jr. (collectively Kirby) sued respondent Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (Immoos) as well as 750 Doe defendants for violating various labor laws as well as the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). Kirby dismissed the case after the trial court denied class certification. The court subsequently awarded $49,846.05 in attorney's fees to Immoos for its defense of the first, sixth and seventh causes of action. For reasons that follow, we shall reverse the award of attorney's fees and remand to the trial court with directions to award Immoos reasonable fees for its defense of the sixth cause of action only.

This appeal challenges an award of attorney's fees to an employer who successfully defended against allegations of labor law violations brought by two former employees. Appellants Anthony Kirby and Rick Leech, Jr. (collectively Kirby) sued respondent Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (Immoos) as well as 750 Doe defendants for violating various labor laws as well as the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). Kirby dismissed the case after the trial court denied class certification. The court subsequently awarded $49,846.05 in attorney's fees to Immoos for its defense of the first, sixth and seventh causes of action. For reasons that follow, we shall reverse the award of attorney's fees and remand to the trial court with directions to award Immoos reasonable fees for its defense of the sixth cause of action only.

The People alleged in an amended petition that A. G., a minor, came within the juvenile court jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 602 because she violated Vehicle Code sections 23136, subdivision (a), and 22349, subdivision (a), and the curfew provisions codified in San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102. The court found true the allegations of the Vehicle Code section 22349, subdivision (a), violation and the San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102 violation, and found A. G. was a person described in sections 601 and 602. At the dispositional hearing, the court placed A. G. on six months' probation. A. G. challenges the true finding that she violated either San Diego's curfew ordinance (San Diego Ord. No. 0-18416, hereafter the curfew ordinance) or San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102, the codification of the curfew ordinance. She asserts both the curfew ordinance and San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102 contain an implied prerequisite requirement for a true finding that she must have previously received a curfew violation warning citation, and there was no evidence she had previously received a warning citation. She also raises a due process claim arising out of the discrepancy, discussed at parts I.C. and II, between the curfew ordinance and its codification in San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102. She also asserts the curfew ordinance and San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102 violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and California Constitutions.

The People alleged in an amended petition that A. G., a minor, came within the juvenile court jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 602 because she violated Vehicle Code sections 23136, subdivision (a), and 22349, subdivision (a), and the curfew provisions codified in San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102. The court found true the allegations of the Vehicle Code section 22349, subdivision (a), violation and the San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102 violation, and found A. G. was a person described in sections 601 and 602. At the dispositional hearing, the court placed A. G. on six months' probation. A. G. challenges the true finding that she violated either San Diego's curfew ordinance (San Diego Ord. No. 0-18416, hereafter the curfew ordinance) or San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102, the codification of the curfew ordinance. She asserts both the curfew ordinance and San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102 contain an implied prerequisite requirement for a true finding that she must have previously received a curfew violation warning citation, and there was no evidence she had previously received a warning citation. She also raises a due process claim arising out of the discrepancy, discussed at parts I.C. and II, between the curfew ordinance and its codification in San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102. She also asserts the curfew ordinance and San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102 violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and California Constitutions.

Scott Busser appeals an order requiring him to pay restitution to his insurance carrier after he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor hit and run (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)) and presenting a materially false statement to his insurance company (Pen. Code,[1] § 550, subd. (b)(1)), a felony. Busser's insurer, Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), paid the repair costs from an accident involving Busser but later discovered Busser had lied about the circumstances of the accident. When he lied, Busser violated the terms of the insurance policy and provided GEICO with grounds to rescind the contract. However, GEICO would have been contractually obligated to pay all the repair costs from the collision if Busser had not lied about the facts of the accident. Thus, Busser's misrepresentation did not actually induce GEICO to provide coverage where there was none or to pay more in repair costs than it was otherwise obligated to pay under the contract. Nevertheless, the trial court ordered Busser to pay restitution to GEICO under subdivision (a)(3)(B) of section 1202.4 for the repair costs from the accident.[2] We conclude, based on the rule first stated in People v. Crow (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 952, 962 (Crow), the repair costs GEICO would have been obligated to pay if Busser had not presented a materially false statement are not losses resulting from the criminal offense under section 1202.4 because they are not attributable to Busser's criminal misrepresentation. Accordingly, Court reverse that part of the trial court's order requiring Busser to reimburse GEICO for the repair costs arising out of the accident.

A homeowners association filed a construction defect action against the developer of a condominium project on its own behalf and as a representative of its members for damage to common areas, property owned by the association, and property owned by individual members. We conclude that an arbitration provision in a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's) recorded by the developer of the condominium project, which may not be changed by the association without the written consent of the developer, did not constitute an "agreement" sufficient to waive the constitutional right to jury trial for construction defect claims brought by the homeowners association. Additionally, assuming the homeowners association is bound by a jury waiver provision contained in purchase and sale agreements signed by the individual condominium owners, we conclude that the jury waiver provision in the purchase and sale agreements is not enforceable because it is unconscionable. Accordingly, Court affirm the trial court's order denying the developer's motion to compel arbitration.

A homeowners association filed a construction defect action against the developer of a condominium project on its own behalf and as a representative of its members for damage to common areas, property owned by the association, and property owned by individual members. We conclude that an arbitration provision in a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's) recorded by the developer of the condominium project, which may not be changed by the association without the written consent of the developer, did not constitute an "agreement" sufficient to waive the constitutional right to jury trial for construction defect claims brought by the homeowners association. Additionally, assuming the homeowners association is bound by a jury waiver provision contained in purchase and sale agreements signed by the individual condominium owners, we conclude that the jury waiver provision in the purchase and sale agreements is not enforceable because it is unconscionable. Accordingly, Court affirm the trial court's order denying the developer's motion to compel arbitration.

Defendants and appellants Thomas Stanton and Donna Stanton replaced two windows in their condominium with "sandtone" colored windows after the condominium association, Chapala Management Corporation (Association), had denied their application for those improvements on grounds they were not an approved color. Association thereafter filed suit and, following a bench trial, obtained a judgment against the Stantons for injunctive and declaratory relief declaring them in violation of Association's amended and restated declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) and requiring them to modify or replace their windows under the approval of Association's architectural review committee (at times hereafter the ARC). The trial court ordered the Stantons to pay attorney fees and thereafter ordered them to post a bond or undertaking to stay the collection of the attorney fee award. The Stantons appealed from the judgment without filing an appeal bond or other undertaking.

Defendants and appellants Thomas Stanton and Donna Stanton replaced two windows in their condominium with "sandtone" colored windows after the condominium association, Chapala Management Corporation (Association), had denied their application for those improvements on grounds they were not an approved color. Association thereafter filed suit and, following a bench trial, obtained a judgment against the Stantons for injunctive and declaratory relief declaring them in violation of Association's amended and restated declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) and requiring them to modify or replace their windows under the approval of Association's architectural review committee (at times hereafter the ARC). The trial court ordered the Stantons to pay attorney fees and thereafter ordered them to post a bond or undertaking to stay the collection of the attorney fee award. The Stantons appealed from the judgment without filing an appeal bond or other undertaking.

Defendants and appellants Thomas Stanton and Donna Stanton replaced two windows in their condominium with "sandtone" colored windows after the condominium association, Chapala Management Corporation (Association), had denied their application for those improvements on grounds they were not an approved color. Association thereafter filed suit and, following a bench trial, obtained a judgment against the Stantons for injunctive and declaratory relief declaring them in violation of Association's amended and restated declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) and requiring them to modify or replace their windows under the approval of Association's architectural review committee (at times hereafter the ARC). The trial court ordered the Stantons to pay attorney fees and thereafter ordered them to post a bond or undertaking to stay the collection of the attorney fee award. The Stantons appealed from the judgment without filing an appeal bond or other undertaking.