Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

David Bustamante (the victim) was shot and killed in the parking lot of an In-N-Out restaurant on Christmas Day in 2015. The victim was giving a tattoo to Nancy A. when he told her he had to go out to meet a friend. Ana S., who was Nancy’s girlfriend, was with them. While the victim was driving, he received a phone call from a caller identified as "Jboy 12th Street" advising him to drive to the In-N-Out in Hesperia. The victim drove up to a red truck that was parked in the parking lot. The victim exited his vehicle and the driver of the red truck immediately shot at the victim, yelling “La Eme” a term for the Mexican Mafia. Both Nancy and Ana identified defendant John Oliva as the shooter; cellular telephone records placed defendant near the scene at the time of the shooting; and the victim listed defendant’s cellular telephone number under the name Jboy 12th Street in his contacts. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, the special circumstances of lying in wait and benefitting a criminal street gang, and weapons use and gang enhancements. After the Court of Appeal affirmed defendant's convictions, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 333) which amended Penal Code section 186.22 and added Penal Code section 1109. The Court of Appeal recalled the remittitur, canceled the remittitur, vacated its previous opinion, and had the parties submit supplemental briefing on the impact of AB 333 on the judgment in this case. Based on these changes, the Court concluded remand for a new trial on the gang enhancements and the gang murder special allegation pursuant to section 186.22 was necessary. The Court determined the admission of gang evidence in this case was not prejudicial and a retrial on all of the charges was not required. View "California v. Oliva" on Justia Law

Appellant California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) appealed from a judgment granting Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandate (judgment). DMV contends the issues presented on appeal are whether the trial court erred in overturning the suspension of Plaintiff’s driver’s license (1) “by applying [former] Government Code section 11440.30.   The Fifth Appellate District affirmed the “Judgment Granting Petition For Writ Of Mandate And Awarding Costs And Attorney Fees To Petitioner” and remanded the cause to the court below, with directions to modify the judgment to provide that the matter shall thereafter be remanded to the DMV for further proceedings. The court concluded that former Government Code section 11440.30 was applicable to Plaintiff’s DMV driver’s license suspension hearing. Said former statute is fully consistent with other relevant statutes, including, without limitation, Vehicle Code sections 14100 through 14112 and Government Code section 11501. Further, the court concluded that both CCR section 115.07 and former Government Code section 11440.30 were mandatory and not merely directory. Moreover, substantial evidence supports an implied finding that Plaintiff was prejudiced by DMV’s failure to adhere to former government code section 11440.30. View "Ramirez v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Over the objection of 12-year-old M.M.’s mother (“mother”), the juvenile court authorized the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services or the congregate care facility where M.M. was placed to vaccinate the child against the SARS-CoV-2 virus once his pediatrician approved. Several weeks later mother asked the court to rescind its order, explaining in greater detail her religious objection to M.M. receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court denied the petition, finding insufficient evidence it was in the child’s best interest not to be vaccinated.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that the record at the section 388 hearing amply justified the court’s conclusion it would not be in M.M.’s best interest to revoke the vaccination order despite mother’s unsupported concerns about possible adverse side effects. As established by the Department’s response to mother’s petition, COVID-19 was one of the ten leading causes of death for children as of October 2021, COVID-19 infections were then increasing, M.M. was in contact with multiple individuals at his placement and his school, the Pfizer vaccine had been found safe for children his age and M.M.’s pediatrician had determined there were no known contraindications to M.M. receiving the vaccine. Moreover, as discussed, M.M. was not averse to receiving the vaccination, leaving it to the court to decide. Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to conclude its authorization to vaccinate M.M. should stand. View "In re Matthew M." on Justia Law

A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleges that about 10 years ago, while he was a minor, Petitioner committed a lewd act upon a child. This matter came to the attention of law enforcement only because Petitioner voluntarily admitted to the police that he committed the lewd act. He now seeks relief from the juvenile court’s order granting deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). Petitioner contends that the order must be vacated and the juvenile court’s jurisdiction terminated because “he [is] well beyond the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction.”   The Second Appellate District agreed and granted the petition. The court construed section 607, subdivision (h)(2) as applying to the discharge from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction after the court has retained jurisdiction over a minor pursuant to subdivisions (a) through (c). Pursuant to section 607, subdivision (a), the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner because he was over the age of 21 years. The court wrote that common sense compels the conclusion that Petitioner is just too old to be “treated” as a “minor” and the section 602 petition must be dismissed. View "M.E. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Brandon Lewis was convicted by jury of pimping three minors, for which he was sentenced to over 73 years in prison. He appealed, contending his Sixth Amendment right to confront an accuser was violated because a computer monitor blocked his view of her face when she testified. Defendant also contended, the State conceded, and the Court of Appeal agreed that a portion of his sentence was unauthorized. The Court disagreed Defendant's confrontation right was violated by the computer monitor; the Court concurred a portion of the sentence was unauthorized. In light of recently enacted legislation, the Court remanded Defendant's case for resentencing. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "California v. Lewis" on Justia Law

In consolidated proceedings, Petitioners each sought a writ requiring the Superior Court to dismiss their cases for violating their speedy trial rights under Penal Code section 1382.2. Petitioners argued there was no good cause to continue their cases past the statutory deadline because the Superior Court can no longer rely on the “exceptional circumstances” resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.The court of appeal denied the petitions. The pandemic and its adverse impacts on the courts did not end when the courts reopened; courts had to address both the backlog that had developed during the closure of the courts and new cases. Although the courts reopened, the pandemic continued to wreak havoc, with 36 judicial officers, court staff, sheriff’s deputies, attorneys, defendants, and jurors contracting COVID-19, being required to quarantine due to exposure, or having to care for family members. The persistence of a backlog during the period at issue was principally the result of continuing consequences of the pandemic. Not only the pandemic, itself, but its length, seriousness, and continuing effects were unexpected and unanticipated and resulted in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. The Superior Court did not, in these cases, abuse its discretion in concluding that exceptional circumstances justified the continuance of Petitioners’ trials past their statutory last days. View "Estrada v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded an employment matter to the Second Appellate District to resolve two issues the parties addressed in their respective appeals, but that we did not reach based on our conclusion about the nature of missed-break premium pay: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (Spectrum) had not acted “willfully” in failing to timely pay employees premium pay (which barred recovery under § 203); and (2) whether Spectrum’s failure to report missed-break premium pay on wage statements was “knowing and intentional,” as is necessary for recovery under section 226.   After receiving supplemental briefing following remand, the Second Appellate District concluded as follows: (1) substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Spectrum presented defenses at trial—in good faith—for its failure to pay meal premiums to depart employees and therefore, Spectrum’s failure to pay meal premiums was not “willful” under section 203; and (2) because an employer’s good faith belief that it is in compliance with section 226 precludes a finding of a knowing and intentional violation of that statute, the trial court erred by awarding penalties, and the associated attorneys’ fees, under section 226. View "Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Lunada Bay Boys (Bay Boys) are a group of young and middle-aged men local to the City of Palos Verdes (the “City”), who consider themselves to be the self-appointed guardians of Lunada Bay. One of their tenets is to keep outsiders away from the surf location. They accomplish this through threats and violence. Plaintiffs are (1) two non-locals who encountered harassment by the Bay Boys when they tried to surf Lunada Bay and (2) a non-profit dedicated to preserving coastal access. They brought suit against the Bay Boys, some of its individual members, and the City itself for conspiracy to deny access under the California Coastal Act. Plaintiffs alleged that the City conspired with the Bay Boys essentially to privatize Lunada Bay, depriving nonlocals of access. The trial court granted the City judgment on the pleadings.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court held that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged an unpermitted “development” in the Bay Boys’ denial of access to the beach. Further, the court explained that parties can, in fact, be liable for Coastal Act violations under the doctrine of conspiracy. Conspiracy liability is not limited to tort; defendants may be liable if they agree to engage in conduct that violates a duty imposed by statute. The court wrote, at this point, Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged an actionable conspiracy in which the City has participated. View "Spencer v. City of Palos Verdes Estates" on Justia Law

Securus Technologies, LLC (Securus), is one of six telecommunications companies providing incarcerated persons calling services (IPCS) in California. In this original proceeding, Securus challenges the decision of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) adopting interim rate relief for IPCS in the first phase of a two-phase rulemaking proceeding. Among other things, the PUC’s decision: (1) found IPCS providers operate as locational monopolies within the incarceration facilities they serve and exercise market power; (2) adopted an interim cap on intrastate IPCS rates of $0.07 per minute for all debit, prepaid, and collect calls; and (3) prohibited providers from charging various ancillary fees associated with intrastate and jurisdictionally mixed IPCS.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the PUC’s decision. The court concluded Securus has not shown the PUC erred by finding providers operate locational monopolies and exercise market power. The court held that facts do not—as Securus contends—demonstrate Securus “cannot recover its costs (including a reasonable rate of return)” under the interim rate cap and do not amount to a “clear showing” that a rate of $0.07 per minute “is so unreasonably low” that “it will threaten Securus’s financial integrity.” Thus, Securus has failed to satisfy its “burden of proving . . . prejudicial error” on constitutional grounds. View "Securus Technologies v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a qui tam case on behalf of the State of California alleging Defendants and Respondents engaged in medical insurance fraud. Plaintiff asserted the alleged fraud victimized the state workers’ compensation system, including the State Compensation Insurance Fund, as well as Medi-Cal, and brought her action under the California False Claims Act (CFCA) and the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA). Plaintiff filed her qui tam complaint under seal and in camera as statutorily required. Before the matter reached trial, however, the trial court dismissed the action pursuant to the “five-year rule” set out in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.   The Second Appellate District reversed the judgment of dismissal, reinstated the action, and remanded it. The court held that the 962 days the action was kept under seal should have been excluded from the five-year period pursuant to Section 583.340(b). Further, the five-year period had not expired at the time the court dismissed the action. A five-year period totals 1,825 days. Adding to that period, the 962 days during which the action was under seal, the 712 days of the first stay and the 236 days of the second stay total 3,735 days. The date 3,735 days from the date Plaintiff filed her complaint (July 13, 2012) is October 3, 2022. Adding six months due to the COVID-19 emergency rule extends the period to April 3, 2023. Therefore, the trial court erred in prematurely dismissing Plaintiff’s action on February 24, 2021. View "State of Cal. ex. rel. Sills v. Gharib-Danesh" on Justia Law