Petitions for writ of mandate challenging trial court's denial of petitioners' motions to dismiss recommitment petitions, brought after the trial court granted People's motions to convert petitioners' involuntary two-year commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) to an indeterminate term under the 2006 amendment to the SVPA, are denied where: 1) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the People made a good faith mistake of law when they failed to timely file the recommitment petitions before the expirations of petitioners' most recent two-year commitment periods; 2) the good-faith exception of section 6601(a)(2) precludes dismissal of the untimely recommitment petitions because petitioners' unlawful custody was due to People's mistake of law; and 3) therefore, the trial court properly denied petitioners' motions to dismiss and the court has jurisdiction to proceed on the petitions.      

Read Langhorne v. Sup. Ct., No. H033845 [HTML]

Read Langhorne v. Sup. Ct., No. H033845 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 16, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bamattre-Manoukian

Counsel
For Appellant:    Mary J. Greenwood, Public Defender, Michael S. Ogul, Deputy Public Defender, Matthew M. Wilson, Deputy Public Defender

For Appellee:  Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Bridget Billeter, Deputy Attorney General

In plaintiff's suit against his former employer for retaliatory termination, judgment pursuant to a jury's verdict in favor of defendant and denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of plaintiff's alleged disability as he failed to make known to the court the purpose and relevance of the evidence to any other issue; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a proposed settlement agreement fell within Evidence Code section 1152's broad scope. 

Read Mangano v. Verity, Inc., No. H033286 [HTML]

Read Mangano v. Verity, Inc., No. H033286 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 16, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mihara

Counsel
For Appellant:    Stephen R. Jaffe

For Appellee:  Gregory L. Doll, Hunter R. Eley, Doll Amir & Eley LLP

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision and award finding the employer liable for discrimination against an industrially injured employee because the employer did not accept a physician's release to allow the employee to return to work is annulled as the employee did not establish a prima facie showing of employer's liability for discrimination in violation of Labor Code section 132a, and as such, the burden did not shift to the employer to establish an affirmative defense.  

Read Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B209336 [HTML]

Read Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B209336 [PDF]

Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Kitching

Counsel

For Appellant:  Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Paul W. Crane, Jr., Molly A. Harcos; Law Offices of Daniel P. Goggins and Daniel P. Goggins

For Appellee:  Goldschmid, Silver & Spindel and Lawrence Silver

In a dispute over whether plaintiff's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in a trademark infringement action under an "advertising injury" policy, summary judgment for insurance company is affirmed as the prior publication exclusion in the policy bars coverage for trademark infringement in this case. 

Read Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, No. B208699 [HTML]

Read Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, No. B208699 [PDF]

Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mosk

Counsel

For Appellant:  Law Offices of Mark L. Sutton, Mark L. Sutton

For Appellee:  Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Cheryl A. Orr, David A. Tartaglio; Bates & Carey, Richard H. Nicolaides, Jr., Jonathan T. Viner, Daniel I. Graham, Jr., and Agelo L. Reppas

Defendant's sentence to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life to run consecutive to a determinate term of four years for child endangerment, evading a police officer, and hit and run causing property damage, is reversed and remanded for resentencing where the  trial court's determination that defendant maintained multiple criminal objectives with regard to his conviction for evading a police officer was not supported by sufficient evidence. Also, on resentencing, the court may reconsider its ruling on a one-year prior enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. 

Read People v. Pakes, No. H032734 [HTML]

Read People v. Pakes, No. H032734 [PDF]

Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mihara

Counsel
For Appellant:    Dallas Sacher

For Appellee:  Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General,  Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stan Helfman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Deputy Attorney General. 

Conviction of defendants for first degree murder of their accomplice, who was killed by the intended victim of an apparent attempted robbery, is reversed and remanded where: 1) a defendant may be convicted of first degree murder under the provocative act doctrine if the defendant personally acted willfully, and with premeditation during the attempted murder; but 2) the jury instructions on first degree murder failed to require the jury to find whether each defendant personally acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation during the course of the attempted murder of the victim. 

Read People v. Concha, No. S163811 [HTML]

Read People v. Concha, No. S163811 [PDF]

Appellate Information
Appeal from Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C148565

Filed November12, 2009

Judges
Before:  George, C. J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Moreno, J., and Kennard, J., Corrigan, J.

Opinion by Corrigan, J.

Counsel
For Appellant:   Maria Morrison, Diana M. Teran

For Appellee:  Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Scott A. Taryle and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General

Grant of defendant's motion to vacate a sister state judgment and denial of Arizona's motion for reconsideration, arising from defendant's incorporation of a company in Arizona at her husband's request, is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that: 1) defendant had no notice of the Arizona administrative proceedings; 2) defendant did not retain the lawyer as her attorney; and 3) defendant never signed a written waiver of the lawyer's conflict of interest in representing clients with opposing interests. 

Read State of Arizona v. Yuen, No. B210459 [HTML]

Read State of Arizona v. Yuen, No. B210459 [PDF]

Filed November 12, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Flier

Counsel

For Appellant:   The Guerrini Law Firm, John D. Guerrini and David Brand

For Appellee:   Law Offices of J. Steven Kennedy and J. Steven Kennedy

In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit, his request for writ of relief from two orders excluding evidence in favor of his former attorneys is granted and the orders vacated as the communications are a client and his attorney, outside the presence of, and not otherwise communicated to, any opposing party or the mediator, and reveal nothing said or done in the mediation discussion. 

Read Cassel v. Sup. Ct., No. B215215 [HTML]

Read Cassel v. Sup. Ct., No. B215215 [PDF]

Filed November13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Jackson

Counsel

For Appellant:   Makarem & Associates, Ronald W. Makarem, Peter M. Kunstler and Jamie R. Greene

For Appellee:   Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Peter Q. Ezzell, Nancy E. Lucas and Stephen M. Caine

City's petition for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarding the full $125,000 death benefit to the California Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit (DWD Unit), notwithstanding the City's payment of $104,208 in death benefits to the deceased worker's estate pursuant to Labor Code section 4702(a)(6)(B) is annulled because the escheat of a death benefit to the state after partial payment to the estate, in effect the award of two death benefits for a single death, is inconsistent with the governing statutes and the legislative policy they implement.  

Read City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B211331 [HTML] 

Read City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B211331 [PDF] 

Filed November 12, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Perluss

Counsel

For Appellant:   Gurvitz Marlowe & Miller and Diane E. Phillips

For Appellee:   N/A