People v. Stanley, C063661, concerned a challenge to the trial court's order of restitution in the amount of $2,812.94 for repairs to a truck, in a prosecution of defendant for felony vandalism of the truck. In affriming, the court disagreed with People v. Yanez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1622, to the extent that Yanez sets out a rigid rule that a trial court could never award more than a vehicle's market value. The court agreed with In re Dina V. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 486, where the statutes implementing Proposition 8 give the trial court a choice between market value and feasible repair cost. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the victim the cost of repairing the vehicle, even if that amount exceeds the replacement value of the vehicle.
Khan v. Los Angeles City Employees' Ret. Sys., B214685, concerned a challenge to the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff granting his petition for writ of mandate compelling the Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System (LACERS) to approve his request for concurrent deferred retirement benefits with LACERS and the Judicial Retirement System (JRS). In reversing, the court held that there is no reciprocity between LACERS and JRS/JRS II, such that plaintiff, a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County who had worked for the City of Los Angeles as a City Attorney, may retire from LACERS at his higher judicial salary. Further, the provisions relating to the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL) do not control the court's analysis.