A.L. [Full Text]: Under traditional principles of tort law, nonprofit regional centers have special relationship with persons with developmental disabilities, warranting duty of care to protect those persons from sexual abuse by providers’ employees through vetting and monitoring providers; however, this duty of care is limited to situations in which centers have actual knowledge of propensity of a providers’ employee to engage in sexual abuse A.L. v. Harbor Developmental Disabilities Foundation (5/30/24) 2 Civ B322729 (Div 2, Hoffstadt) 2024 DJDAR 4735, 2024 WL 2762270, 102 Cal.App.5th 477, 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 575 (no pet f)

Andrade [Full Text]: In reversal, the Fourth District held trial court erred by concluding a fee provision in loan agreement was limited only to judicial foreclosure action; instead, under CC §1717, a fee provision must be construed as applying to the entire contact, unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of the contract, and that fact of that representation is specified in the contract. Andrade v. Western Riverside Council (2/20/24) 4 Civ D080978 (Div 1, Dato) 2024 DJDAR 1433, 2024 WL 686879, 99 Cal.App.5th 1020, 318 Cal.Rptr.3d 396 (rev den 5/29/24)

Br. C. [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the trial court held PC §633.6 allows a victim of domestic violence to record confidential communications, so long as he or she intends to request a DVRO and reasonably believes that communication may contain evidence germane to that request, regardless of whether a petition has yet been filed with a court; thus, the trial court, in a DVRO proceeding, did not abuse its discretion by admitting three audio recordings where mother testified recordings were made to gather evidence of abuse, the content of recordings in fact were of father’s abusive conduct, and the recordings were close in time to mother’s petition for DVRO. Br. C. v. Be. C. (4/5/24) 3 Civ C097015 (Krause) 2024 DJDAR 3058, 2024 WL 1473397, 101 Cal.App.5th 259, 320 Cal.Rptr.3d 145, CFLP §§C.9.5, C.160.4, 2024 CFLR 15678, 2024 FA 2127 (no pet f)

BTHHM Berkeley [Full Text] [CFLR]: In partial affirmance, the First District held the trial court, in a breach of contract action, did not err by granting plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement pursuant to CCP §664.6, where after a day of mediation the parties signed a two-page settlement term sheet containing a provision that the parties would later execute a final settlement agreement; however, the trial court lacked authority to award prejudgment interest to plaintiff, where the term sheet contained a liquidated damages provision that did not provide for an award of prejudgment interest.  BTHHM Berkeley, LLC v. Johnston (3/28/24) 1 Civ A166242 (Div 4, Goldman) 2024 DJDAR 2835, 2024 WL 1336433, 100 Cal.App.5th 1220, 319 Cal.Rptr.3d 852, CFLP §C.87, 2024 CFLR 15677, 2024 FA 2126 (no pet f)

Bailey [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Fourth District held the trial court, in a DVRO proceeding, did not err by asking unrepresented plaintiff open-ended questions during her direct examination; neither did the trial court err by allowing plaintiff to testify about an alleged incident that she did not include in her DVRO petition since defendant was placed on notice of the general allegations. Bailey v. Murray (5/9/24; ord pub 6/5/24) 4 Civ E081558 (Div 2, Raphael) 2024 WL 2852187, 102 Cal.App.5th 677, 322 Cal.Rptr.3d 21, CFLP §C.13, 2024 CFLR 15720, 2024 FA 2136 (no pet f)

Bassi [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Sixth District held wife’s e-mails threatening to file a RICO action against husband constituted protected speech under the anti- SLAPP statute; however, husband showed a probability of prevailing on his DVRO action and, thus, the trial court did not err by denying wife’s special motion to strike husband’s DVRO petition. Bassi v. Bassi (4/15/24; ord pub 5/9/24) 6 Civ H049873 (per curiam) 2024 DJDAR 3944, 2024 WL 2074835, 101 Cal.App.5th 1080, 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, CFLP §A.103.2.115, 2024 CFLR 15719, 2024 FA 2132 (no pet f)

Bijan Boutiques, LLC [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Fourth District held Mejia exception [marital settlement agreement can be challenged as an avoidable transaction under the Uni- form Voidable Transaction Act (UVTA)] does not apply to default judgments; thus, the trial court did not err by awarding summary judgment to wife, where creditor sought to have default judgment in dissolution action declared void under UVTA since the trial court assigned liability to husband but awarded domestic marital home to wife. Bijan Boutiques, LLC v. Isong (8/13/24) 4 Civ G063288 (Div 3, Goethals) 2024 DJDAR 7731, 2024 WL 3770473, 104 Cal.App.5th 132, 324 Cal.Rptr.3d 390, CFLP §S.48.0.60, 2024 CFLR 15791, 2024 FA 2146 (no pet f)

C.C. v D.V. [Full Text] [CFLR]: In partial reversal, the First District held that when a court issues a restraining order pursuant to a stipulation, the court necessarily has made a finding that the restrained party perpetrated domestic violence, thereby giving rise to the presumption in Fam C §3044 [rebuttable presumption against custody award to perpetrator of domestic violence]; thus, the trial court erred by issuing a joint custody order, where mother had a one-year restraining order against father pursuant to a stipulation by the parties and where the trial court failed to first determine father had overcome the presumption in Fam C §3044. C.C. v. D.V. (9/16/24) 1 Civ A168514, A169350 (Div 3, Rodriguez) 2024 DJDAR 9193, 2024 WL 4210676, 105 Cal.App.5th 101, 325 Cal.Rptr.3d 661, CFLP §G.26.5, 2024 CFLR 15842, 2024 FA 2150 (no pet f)

C.C. v. L.B. [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, Second District holds appellant, a sperm donor who consented to adoption and the termination of his parental rights, does not have standing to request to establish parent-child relationship and custody and visitation eleven years later, even where appellant had exercised regular visitation with child during this time per the donor agreement. C.C. v. L.B. (11/26/24) 2 Civ B331558 (Div 6, Cody) 2024 DJDAR 10911, 2024 WL 4888002, 106 Cal.App.5th 1323, 327 Cal.Rptr.3d 700, CFLP §G.163.5.20, 2024 CFLR __, 2024 FA 2160 (pet rev f 1/2/25)

Cady and Gamick [Full Text] [CFLR]: In reversal, the Second District held W&I C §12350 [no demand shall be made upon a relative to support or contribute toward support of an applicant or recipient of government aid] operates only to protect a parent from action by state government actors for recoupment of government aid; thus, W&I C §12350 does not bar a parent from seeking a court order requiring the other parent to contribute to the support of a disabled adult child under Fam C §3910 [parents must support incapacitated adult child]. In re Marriage of Cady and Gamick (9/25/24) 2 Civ B326716 (Div 1, Weingart) 2024 DJDAR 9390, 2024 WL 4284274, 105 Cal.App.5th 379, 325 Cal.Rptr.3d 856, CFLP §E.2.1.1, 2024 CFLR 15844, 2024 FA 2152 (no pet f)

California Capital Ins. Co. [Full Text]: California Supreme Court held defendant’s motion to vacate default judgment pursuant to CCP §473(d), which was made on the basis that judgment was void for lack of proper service, was not subject to judicially imposed two-year limitation, disapproving Rogers v. Silverman (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1114, 265 Cal.Rptr. 286 and Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 619. California Capital Insurance Co. v. Hoehn (11/18/24) S277510, 2024 DJDAR 10673, 2024 WL 4812045, 17 Cal.5th 207, 558 P.3d 590, 327 Cal.Rptr.3d 172 (remit iss 12/19/24)

Cardona [Full Text] [CFLR]: In reversal, the First District held the trial court, in DVRO proceeding, violated father’s due process rights by conducting an in-chambers interview with 12-year-old child, where the interview was not reported and the trial court made no provision to enable father to respond to child’s testimony; reversal of DVRO was required, since there is reasonable probability father would have obtained a more favorable outcome had the error not occurred. Cardona v. Soto (9/17/24) 1 Civ A167089 (Div 1, Humes) 2024 DJDAR 9188, 2024 WL 4210661, 105 Cal.App.5th 141, 325 Cal.Rptr.3d 670, CFLP §§G.26.5, G.35, 2024 CFLR 15843, 2024 FA 2151 (no pet f)

City of Los Angeles [Full Text]: The California Supreme Court held that the general sanctions provisions of the Civil Discovery Act [CCP §§2023.010, 2023.030] authorized award of monetary sanctions for egregious pattern of discovery misuse. City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (8/22/24) S277211, 2024 DJDAR 8056, 2024 WL 3894042, 17 Cal.5th 46, 324 Cal.Rptr.3d 410 (remit iss 9/24/24)

Diamond [Full Text] [CFLR]: In writ proceeding, Fourth District holds trial court erred by ordering mom to undergo a vocational evaluation since there was no statutory basis for such order, where dad filed a paternity action and his request for a vocational evaluation did not contain an allegation or evidence that such evaluation is in the best interest of kids. In re Marriage of Diamond (11/5/24) 2 Civ B321833 (Div 7, Feuer) 2024 DJDAR 4677481, 2024 WL 4677481, 106 Cal.App.5th 550, 327 Cal.Rptr.3d 139, CFLP §T.33.6.15, 2024 CFLR 15861, 2024 FA 2158 (no pet f)

Dragones [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Second District held that the new version of Fam C §6344 [court must award attorney’s fees to prevailing petitioner in DVRO action subject to respondent’s ability to pay], effective January 1, 2023, applies to petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees, even though the underlying restraining order was litigated and decided prior to the new version of the statute taking effect, since Fam C §4 provides that newly enacted provisions of the Family Code apply retroactively. Dragones v. Calkins (1/17/24) 2 Civ B329659 (Div 7, Evenson) 2024 DJDAR 512, 2024 WL 174172, 98 Cal.App.5th 1075, 317 Cal.Rptr.3d 339, CFLP §S.25.0.5, 2024 CFLR 15621, 2024 FA 2116 (no pet f)

E.G. [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Sixth District held sufficient evidence in the record supported the trial court’s issuance of a civil harassment restraining order against 17-year-old who posted videos to TikTok and Instagram in which she accused protected party of supporting sexual abuse and where the videos displayed protected party’s image and contact information and encouraged social media followers to pressure protected party to stop assisting mother in a custody dispute matter. E.G. v. M.L. (9/9/24, ord pub 10/3/24) 6 Civ H051526 (Danner) 2024 WL 4381045, 105 Cal.App.5th 688, 326 Cal.Rptr.3d 197, CFLP §C.16.5, 2024 CFLR 15837, 2024 FA 2153 (depub req f 11/27/24)

Eagle Fire & Water Restoration, Inc. [Full Text]: The Fifth District held that trial court did not err by granting party’s motion to enforce settlement agreement pursuant to CCP §664.4, where parties reached an oral settlement on the record; even though trial court did not expressly retain jurisdiction under the statute, such retention was not necessary since party’s cross-complaint was still pending and, thus, trial court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter. Eagle Fire and Water Restoration, Inc. v. City of Dinuba (5/20/24) 5 Civ F086052 (Franson) 2024 DJDAR 4654, 2024 WL 2762495, 102 Cal.App.5th 448, 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 593 (no pet f)

Feehan [Full Text] [CFLR]: In writ proceeding, First District holds courts have discretion under Fam C § § 3022 and 3100(a) to enter temporary visitation orders in Uniform Parentage Act proceeding if the requesting party has made a preliminary showing that they are a presumed parent and the order is found to be in the best interest of the child; thus, trial court erred by denying a request for visitation made by mother’s former romantic partner on grounds that statutory scheme did not authorize such action. Feehan v. Superior Court (Seto) (9/13/24) 1 Civ A170984 (Div 3, Petrou) 2024 DJDAR 9173, 2024 WL 4195484, 105 Cal.App.5th 38, 325 Cal.Rptr.3d 652, CFLP §G.142, 2024 CFLR 15866, 2024 FA 2155 (no pet f)

G.G. [Full Text] [CFLR]: In reversal, the Second District held the trial court erred by denying mother’s request to renew a DVRO based on the absence of violations of the initial order; instead, the trial court was required to consider factors articulated in Richie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 387, 2004 FA 1134. G.G. v. G.S. (5/28/24) 2 Civ B331994 (Div 4, Zukin) 2024 DJDAR 4589, 2024 WL 2720300, 102 Cal.App.5th 413, 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 519, CFLP §C.13.5, 2024 CFLR 15698, 2024 FA 2134 (no pet f)

Garner [Full Text]: In reversal, the Fourth District held that epidemiological or other scientific studies that had already stated that diesel exhaust and its constituents were more likely than not a cause of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, were not necessary, for sufficient reliability of an expert’s opinion on general causation. Garner v. BNSF Railway Co. (1/4/24) 4 Civ D082229 (Div 1, Buchanan) 2024 DJDAR 211, 2024 WL 4510298, 98 Cal.App.5th 660, 316 Cal.Rptr.3d 862 (rehg den 1/22/24) (rev den 4/17/24)

Gilbert-Valencia and McEachen [Full Text] [CFLR]: In reversal, the Third District held that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding putative spouse 100 percent of quasi-marital home pursuant to Fam C §1101(h) [court must award 100 percent of any asset transferred or undisclosed in a breach of fiduciary duty by one spouse if such breach constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice], since the trial court failed to make any findings that husband’s conduct constituted oppression, fraud, or malice In re Marriage of Gilbert-Valencia and McEachen (12/29/23) 3 Civ C091292, C094849 (Mesiwala) 2024 DJDAR 132, 2023 WL 9014761, 98 Cal.App.5th 520, 316 Cal.Rptr.3d 697, CFLP §J.80.3.2.5, 2024 CFLR 15594, 2024 FA 2114 (rehg den 1/16/23) (mod req den 1/29/24) (no pet f)

Goldman [Full Text] [CFLR]: In reversal, the Fourth District held that, per Fam C §291(d), the defense of laches is available to actions to enforce all family court judgments except support judgments that do not involve the state; although husband’s laches defense was available in wife’s action to enforce tax return and property division provisions of marital settlement agreement, the trial court’s findings that husband was prejudiced by wife’s delay in bringing action is not support by substantial evidence. In re Marriage of Goldman (1/10/25) 4 Civ D082021 (Div 1, Dato) 2025 WL 66276, __ Cal.App.5th __, __ Cal.Rptr.3d __, CFLP §S.24, 2025 CFLR __, 2025 FA 2164

Greisman [Full Text]: First District held that oral stipulation to settlement by parties, including through counsel, satisfied CCP §664.6 [court may enter judgment per parties’ written or oral stipulation for settlement]. Greisman FCA, US, LLC, et. al. (8/5/24) 1 Civ A166919 (Div 2, Richman) 2024 DJDAR 7450, 2024 WL 3648293,103 Cal.App.5th 1310, 324 Cal.Rptr.3d 182 (no pet f)

Katayama [Full Text] [CFLR]: In reversal, the Fourth District held that the assertion of waived objections in a proposed response to requests for admission does not necessarily prevent substantial compliance with CCP §2033.220 [each answer in response to requests for admission must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to responding party permits]; thus, the trial court erred by concluding plaintiff ’s proposed response to defendant’s requests for admission was not in substantial compliance with CCP §2033.220 because it contained waived objections, where plaintiff ’s response was otherwise complete and straightforward. Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (10/9/24) 4 Civ G063872 (Div 3, O’Leary) 2024 DJDAR 9761, 2024 WL 4449683, 105 Cal.App.5th 898, 326 Cal.Rptr.3d 297, CFLP §D.46, 2024 CFLR 15868, 2024 FA 2154 (rehg den 10/30/24) (rev den 1/15/25)

Lietz [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Fourth District held trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proffered testimony of wife’s appraisal expert that lot size of marital home was 10,400 square feet and not 9,000 square feet as indicated in county property records, since such proffered testimony related a case-specific fact about which the expert had no independent knowledge and that was not independently proven and, thus, constituted inadmissible hearsay. In re Marriage of Lietz (2/8/24) 4 Civ G061866 (Div 3, Sanchez) 2024 DJDAR 1169, 2024 WL 487713, 99 Cal.App.5th 664, 318 Cal.Rptr.3d 63, CFLP §P.47, 2024 CFLR 15643, 2024 FA 2119 (no pet f)

 

 

 

 

Lorch [Full Text]: The Fourth District held that court clerk’s voicemail notifying counsel that case had been picked up by new judge for purposes of trial did not trigger master calendar rule, requiring a party who was directed to trial of a cause with a master calendar to file a peremptory challenge to the judge no later than the time the cause was assigned for trial; since the parties were not present before court when assignment was made, there was no opportunity to assert peremptory challenge immediately to master calendar judge. Lorch v. Superior Court (Kia Motors America, Inc.) (5/16/24, mod 6/4/24) 4 Civ D083609 (Div 1, Buchanan) 2024 DJDAR 4876, 2024 WL 2205292, 101 Cal.App.5th 1266, 320 Cal.Rptr.3d 897 (no pet f)

Luo [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Second District held the trial court did not err by dismissing petition for a CCP §527.6 civil harassment restraining order against defendant, a law professor who published plaintiff’s full name in a law review article and last name in three blog posts, where each of the writings were critical of pseudonymous litigation and where there was no evidence that defendant incited others to harass or threaten plaintiff. Luo v. Volokh (5/30/24; ord pub 6/25/24) 2 Civ B323878, B324566 (Div 1, Bendix) 2024 DJDAR 5798, 2024 WL 3158244, 102 Cal.App.5th 1312, 322 Cal.Rptr.3d 323, CFLP §§A.103.2.145, C.15.0.3.15, 2024 CFLR 15741, 2024 FA 2138 (no pet f)

M.A. [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Fourth District held substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the parties were not in a dating relationship for purposes of plaintiff’s cause of action under CC §1708.6 [authorizing civil action for domestic violence] despite the parties having had several sexual encounters over the course of 19-month period. M.A. v. B.F. (2/5/24) 4 Civ G061598 (Div 3, Gooding) 2024 DJDAR 1096, 2024 WL 412143, 99 Cal.App.5th 559, 317 Cal.Rptr.3d 909, CFLP §§C.9.5, C.15.0.1.10, 2024 CFLR 15613, 2024 FA 2118 (rev den & depub req den 6/12/24)

M.T. [Full Text]: The Fifth District held that whether a transgender person’s gender identity conforms with their assigned sex at birth is intimate personal information entitled to protection under the right to privacy; trial court erred by denying petition to seal all court records that reveal applicant’s name change or gender marker correction. In re M.T. (10/29/24) 5 Civ F086891 (Meehan) 2024 DJDAR 10323, 2024 WL 4614003, 106 Cal.App.5th 322, 326 Cal.Rptr.3d 808 (no pet f)

Masimo Corp. [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Fourth District held trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding $10,000 in sanctions against defendant’s attorney for discovery misuse, even though defendant’s attorney withdrew as counsel prior to plaintiff filing a renewed motion to compel and request for sanctions. Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc. (5/2/24) 4 Civ G061829 (Div 3, Bedsworth) 2024 DJDAR 3754, 2024 WL 1926197, 101 Cal.App.5th 902, 320 Cal.Rptr.3d 704 (no pet f)

McIntyre and Shayan [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, Second District holds when a judgment for attorney fees is entered under the Family Code, the judgment is enforceable until satisfied in full and failure to renew the judgment has no effect on its enforceability per Fam C §291(b) [any family law money judgment is enforceable until fully satisfied and is not subject to any renewal requirement]; thus, trial court did not err by denying husband’s motion to quash wife’s writ of execution for attorney fees ordered pursuant to the Family Code, even though judgment awarding attorney fees was entered over ten years ago and was never renewed. In re Marriage of McIntyre and Shayan (10/25/24) 2 Civ B323455 (Div 8, Viramontes) 2024 WL 4585636, 106 Cal.App.5th 76, 326 Cal.Rptr.3d 646, CFLP §S.22, 2024 CFLR ___, 2024 FA 2156 (rev den 1/15/25)

Mercado [Full Text] [CFLR]: In writ proceeding, Fourth District holds trial court erred by ordering mother to undergo a vocational evaluation since there was no statutory basis for such order, where father filed a paternity action and his request for a vocational evaluation did not contain an allegation or evidence that such evaluation is in the best interest of children. Mercado v. Superior Court of Orange County (Wolf) (11/21/24, mod 11/25/24) 4 Civ G063594 (Div 3, Sanchez) 2024 DJDAR 10819, 2024 WL 4850336, 106 Cal.App.5th 1143, 327 Cal.Rptr.3d 615, CFLP §E.35, 2025 CFLR ___, 2024 FA 2161 (no pet f)

Mohammadijoo and Dadashian [Full Text] [CFLR]: In reversal, the First District held that the Margulis burden-shifting analysis applies where managing spouse has postseparation control of nonmanaging spouse’s separate property; trial court erred by failing to shift burden of proof to wife, as managing spouse, to account for community property and separate property funds or be charged with their value. In re Marriage of Mohammadijoo and Dadashian (5/28/24) 1 Civ A163185 (Div 2, Stewart) 2024 DJDAR 4582, 2024 WL 2716849, 102 Cal.App.5th 392, 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 499, CFLP §J.80.3.0.6.10, 2024 CFLR 15713, 2024 FA 2137 (no pet f) v

Moore [Full Text] [CFLR]: In partial affirmance, the First District held that although expenses incurred during the meet and confer process are compensable as discovery sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act, expenses incurred during a voluntary mediation that occurred after a motion to compel has been filed are not compensable as discovery sanctions. In re Marriage of Moore (6/25/24 on rehg) 1 Civ A165038, A165039 (Div 3, Fujisaki) 2024 DJDAR 5804, 2024 WL 3158992, 102 Cal.App.5th 1275, 322 Cal.Rptr.3d 249, CFLP §§D.16.5, D.29.20 et seq., 2024 CFLR 15693 [prior opin vacated: 2024 FA 2133] (no pet f)

Mueller [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the First District held that a confidentiality clause in a written agreement executed during collaborative law process was not enforceable since the agreement itself stated in plain language that it creates no enforceable legal rights or obligations. Mueller v. Mueller (6/3/24) 1 Civ A166577 (Div 5, Burns) 2024 DJDAR 4801, 2024 WL 2809599, 102 Cal.App.5th 593, 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 664, CFLP §C.47.9.20, 2024 CFLR 15718, 2024 FA 2135 (rehg den 6/20/24) (rev den 8/21/24) [Live #170] [13:31]

N.M. [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the First District held trial court did not err by denying husband’s request for a continuance in a DVRO action pursuant to Fam C §245(a) [respondent is entitled, as a matter of course, to one continuance for a reasonable period to respond to DVRO petition], where husband had already responded to wife’s petition at the time husband made a request for a continuance. N.M. v. W.K. (3/19/24) 1 Civ A168081 (Div 3, Tucher) 2024 DJDAR 2620, 2024 WL 1191503, 100 Cal.App.5th 978, 319 Cal.Rptr.3d 563, CFLP §C.1.2, 2024 CFLR 15659, 2024 FA 2124 (no pet f)

Nisbet [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Ninth Circuit majority held district court’s determination that children had no habitual residence for purposes of petition under Hague Convention was not clearly erroneous where mother viewed her residence in Scotland as temporary and intended to return to the United States, where mother and children did not build meaningful connections with people in Scotland, and where father was sentenced to indefinite psychiatric confinement after killing his mother. Nisbet v. Bridger (12/20/24) 9 Cir 23-3877, 2024 WL 5178814, 124 F.4th 577

North American Title Co. [Full Text]: The California Supreme Court held that the nonwaiver provision of CCP §170.3(b)(2) [permitting parties to waive a judge’s disqualification] applies only to scenarios involving judicial self-disqualification, not to circumstances in which a party seeks judicial disqualification because a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do so. North American Title Co. v. Superior Court (Cortina) (10/28/24) S280752 (Guerrero) 2024 WL 4599235, 17 Cal.5th 155, 557 P.3d 1180, 326 Cal.Rptr.3d 582 (remit iss 12/2/24)

Ofek Rachel, Ltd. [Full Text]: The Second District held that CCP §1218 grants a trial court the power to impose attorney’s fees against a person for non-compliance with a court order in post-judgment enforcement proceedings when that person was not a party to the underlying litigation giving rise to that judgment. Ofek Rachel, Ltd. v. Zion (11/21/24) 2 Civ B333959 (Div 2, Hoffstadt) 2024 DJDAR 10815, 2024 WL 4849692, 106 Cal.App.5th 1119, 327 Cal.Rptr.3d 500 (no pet f)

Richard [Full Text]: In reversal, Second District held that expert’s testimony that railroad’s rear railcar was accelerating too fast was not properly excluded on the grounds that the testimony would not be helpful to the jury because they could assess the train’s speed from video of the incident; even if the jury could have independently evaluated the speed at which the rear railcar accelerated, jury could not have known whether that degree of acceleration was typical when a long train began moving, which was significant because railroad’s expert testified that any increase shown on the video was “normal”. Richard v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (9/30/24, ord pub 10/24/24) 2 Civ B322044 (Div 3, Bershon) 2024 WL 4562561, 105 Cal.App.5th 1263, 326 Cal.Rptr.3d 481 (no pet f)

Robles [Full Text]: The Fourth District held plaintiffs had legal right to seek additional attorney’s fees related to motion to enforce stipulated judgment, where the stipulated agreement required defendants to pay plaintiffs “‘$300,000 in full satisfaction of attorneys’ fees’” but where the provision also included an exception to the full satisfaction of attorney’s fees where further action is necessary “‘to enforce this stipulation’”. Robles v. City of Ontario (10/24/24) 4 Civ G064119 (Div 3, Moore) 2024 DJDAR 10546, 2024 WL 4690901, 106 Cal.App.5th 574, 327 Cal.Rptr.3d 33 (rehg den 11/21/24) (depub req f 1/3/25)

Rouston [Full Text]: Fourth District held that detective, who was a gang expert, provided improper expert opinion on defendant’s guilt when he said that defendant fired weapon that wounded victim, where detective could only have inferred that defendant, and not defendant’s cohort, fired ghost gun from witness’s statement to investigating officer that passenger fired black gun. People v. Rouston (2/20/24) 4 Civ D080114 (Div 1, McConnell) 2024 DJDAR 1404, 2024 WL681868, 99 Cal.App.5th 997, 318 Cal.Rptr.3d 378 (no pet f)

Saraye [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, Second District holds that where wage and earnings assignment order was not self-terminating and disso judgment did not require custodial parent to notify obligor of the happening of a contingency affecting child support payments, it is obligor’s responsibility to terminate the wage and earnings assignment order; thus, trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s request for refund of overpayment of child support where assignment order continued to garnish father’s wages for several years after child turned 18 and graduated from high school but where father waited 14 years after date of last child support payment to seek reimbursement. In re Marriage of Saraye (10/30/24) 2 Civ B331257 (Div 8, Stratton) 2024 DJDAR 10388, 2024 WL 4614589, 106 Cal.App.5th 348, 326 Cal.Rptr.3d 835, CFLP §F.88, 2024 CFLR 15867, 2024 FA 2157 (no pet f)

Shah [Full Text]: The First District held that trial court was not required to value stock on or near date of breach when calculating damages for breach of contract. Shah v. Skillz Inc. (4/8/24) 1 Civ A165372 (Div 5, Chou) 2024 DJDAR 3094, 2024 WL 1507427, 101 Cal.App.5th 285, 320 Cal.Rptr.3d 175 (no pet f)

Shenefield [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, Fourth District holds litigation privilege does not bar wife’s causes of action against husband’s attorney that arose from attorney’s threats to file for full custody if wife did not sign a proposed joint custody agreement, where the threats in question amounted to a mere tactical ploy and were not made in good faith since a DVRO and criminal protective order prohibited husband from having contact with wife or child except for court-ordered visitation and where husband had two weeks earlier entered a guilty plea for battery on a spouse. Shenefield v. Kovtun (10/24/24; ord pub 11/20/24) 4 Civ D083018 (Div 1, Irion) 2024 WL 4831345, 106 Cal.App.5th 925, 327 Cal.Rptr.3d 519, CFLP §§A.103.0.0.1, A.103.2.6, 2024 CFLR ___, 2024 FA 2159 (no pet f)

So. Cal. Edison [Full Text]: In reversal, the Second District held trial court abused its discretion in ruling that documents prepared by utility company as part of an attorney led internal investigation into company’s compliance with statutory requirements were not entitled to at least qualified attorney work product protection; work product doctrine includes the work of those employed by an attorney or for him by his client, in investigating both the favorable and unfavorable aspects of the case. So. Cal. Edison v. Superior Court (21st Century Ins. Co.) (5/31/24) 2 Civ B333798 (Div 1, Weingart) 2024 DJDAR 4793, 2024 WL 2794134, 102 Cal.App.5th 573, 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 617 (no pet f)

Tara and Robert D. [Full Text] [CFLR]: In affirmance, the Fourth District held the trial court abused its discretion by denying father’s request for a continuance after his attorney withdrew the day before trial, where trial court did not inquire whether father had retained a new attorney or about the length of the continuance sought, and, therefore, could not give the request proper consideration; nevertheless, father failed to show trial court’s error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In re Marriage of Tara and Robert D. (2/16/24) 4 Civ D080977 (Div 1, Dato) 2024 DJDAR 1343, 2024 WL 650411, 99 Cal.App.5th 871, 318 Cal.Rptr.3d 255, CFLP §C.29.11.40, 2024 CFLR 15642, 2024 FA 2120 (no pet f)

Vaghashia [Full Text]: In affirmance, the Second District held that trial court did not err by accepting parties’ first position that settlement agreement was enforceable, and, thus, judicial estoppel prevented parties’ later position in seeking to vacate settlement agreement, even though the trial court did not interpret the settlement agreement the way the parties wanted it to. Vaghashia v. Vaghashia (10/28/24) 2 Civ B331073 (Div 8, Grimes) 2024 WL 4599698, 106 Cal.App.5th 188, 326 Cal.Rptr.3d 715 (rehg den 11/14/24) (pet rev f 12/6/24)

Wiese [Full Text] [CFLR]: In a partially published opinion, the Fourth District held Fam C §1101(d)(2)’s exemption from the general statute of limitations concerning breach of fiduciary duty claims applies only to community property claims; thus, most of wife’s breach of fiduciary duty claims concerning separate property were barred by the general statute of limitations under CCP §343 [providing four-year statute of limitations to claims for breach of fiduciary duty]. In re Marriage of Wiese (6/20/24, mod 7/16/24) 4 Civ G060819, G061168 (Div 3 (O’Leary) 2024 DJDAR 5572, 2024 WL 3063228, 102 Cal.App.5th 917, 322 Cal.Rptr.3d 336, CFLP §J.80.3.2, 2024 CFLR 15757, 2024 FA 2145 (rehg den 7/16/24) (rev den 10/2/24)

Wood [Full Text]: In reversal, the First District held that trial court abused its discretion when it declined female applicant’s petition to change her name to “Candi Bimbo Doll” on the basis that the name was offensive; the word “Bimbo” is not a fighting word, not vulgar, and not necessarily offensive. Wood v. San Francisco County Superior Court (3/14/24, mod 3/15/24) 1 Civ A168463 (Div 2, Richman) 2024 DJDAR 2430, 2024 WL 1110085, 100 Cal.App.5th 717, 319 Cal.Rptr.3d 303 (no pet f)

Note: Legislation listed below indicates principle statutes affected only. Statutes are effective and operative 1/1/25 unless otherwise noted.

Selected 2024 California Assembly Bills

AB 665 (Stats 2023, Ch. 338, Carrillo) Eff. 1/1/24, oper. 7/1/24 [Full Text]: Minors; consent to mental health services. Section 3 amends Fam C §6924 to align with H&S C §124260. Both statutes allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to mental health treatment or counseling services in certain circumstances without a parent or guardian’s consent. However, prior to 7/1/24, Fam C §6924 had included the requirement that a minor present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or others, or is the victim of incest or child abuse. Operative 7/1/24, this bill amends Fam C §6924(b) to remove that additional requirement. The bill also amends subdivisions (a) and (d) regarding the definition of ‘professional person’ and payment. 2024 CFLR 15525, CFLP §§D.110, P.86.

AB 2397 (Stats 2024, Ch. 25, Maienschein) Eff. 1/1/25 [Full Text]: Child support; special needs trust. Section 1 amends Fam C §3910 [duty to support incapacitated adult child] by adding new subdivision (b) to clarify that a family court may order a support payment to be paid in a special needs trust for a child of any age who is incapacitated from earning a living and without sufficient means. According to the author of the bill, the amendment will prevent support payments from having that income counted against the child when determining eligibility for Supplemental Security Income.  2024 CFLR 15806, CFLP §E.2.1.1.

AB 3072 (Stats 2024, Ch. 317, Petrie-Norris) Eff. 1/1/25 [Full Text]:  Restrictions on Ex Parte Orders Granting or Modifying Custody Order. Section 1 amends Fam C §3064 by requiring a court, when determining whether there is a showing of immediate harm to a child warranting an ex parte custody order, to consider whether a parent has illegal access to a firearm or ammunition as part of its determination. Section 2 amends Fam C §3100 to require a court that has found circumstances warrant making an order granting or modifying a custody order on an ex parte basis to consider whether the best interest of the child requires that any visitation by the parent be suspended, denied, or supervised by a third party, including virtual visitation. 2024 CFLR 15806, CFLP §§G.26.7, G.90.

Selected 2024 California Senate Bills

SB 554 (Stats 2024, Ch. 652, Cortese) Eff. 1/1/25 [Full Text]: Restraining orders. Section 2 amends Fam C §6301 [persons who may be granted order] by adding new subdivision (a) to clarify that an individual need not be a resident of California to file a petition under the DVPA. The bill further authorizes that petitions under the DVPA can be filed in any superior court in California, including but not limited to: 1) the county where the petitioner resides or is temporarily located; 2) the county where the defendant resides; 3) the county where the offense occurred; or 4) any other court that may have jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter of the case. 2024 CFLR 15810, CFLP §C.9.5.

SB 1427 (Stats 2024, Ch. 190, Allen) Eff. 1/1/25; oper. 1/1/26 [Full Text]: Marriage; joint petition for dissolution of marriage. Beginning 1/1/26, allows any married couple to file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation. Section 1 amends Fam C §2330 by adding new subdivision (c) which provides the format for the filing of a joint petition. Section 2 amends Fam C §2331 by adding new subdivision (b) regarding service of joint petition and joint summons. 2024 CFLR 15822, CFLP §C.144.