Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, five minors, aged between one and fourteen years, challenged the juvenile court's decision to order reunification services for their parents, identified as A.B. (mother) and A.S. (father). The minors were adjudged dependent children due to ongoing domestic violence and substance abuse in their home. The court had to interpret and apply the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), which allows a court to bypass reunification services for parents with a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol who have resisted prior court-ordered treatment in the three years prior to the filing of the petition.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District concluded that the juvenile court had misapplied the law when it decided it could not deny reunification services to the parents while they were participating in treatment. The court emphasized that the statute requires proof of the parent’s resistance during the three years preceding the petition, regardless of their engagement in treatment at the time of the disposition hearing.The court reversed the juvenile court's dispositional order providing reunification services to the parents for all five children and remanded the case for a new disposition hearing based on the family's present circumstances. This decision was made despite subsequent events that rendered the case potentially moot, as the court deemed the issue of statutory interpretation important. View "In re L.B." on Justia Law

In this case, the California School Employees Association (CSEA) filed a complaint with the Public Employment Relations Board (Board or PERB) alleging that the Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) violated Government Code section 3543.5, subdivision (a), by terminating an employee in retaliation for her union activities. The employee was a secretary and local union chapter president. The Board found in favor of the employee, concluding that her status as a union officer was protected activity under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), and that VUSD had retaliated against her for her union activity. VUSD appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, held that holding a union office is protected activity under the EERA. The court also concluded that the Board correctly found an inference that VUSD had retaliated against the employee for her union activity. However, the court disagreed with the Board's conclusion that VUSD failed to prove its affirmative defense, that it would have terminated the employee for poor performance regardless of any protected activity. The court found that the record compelled a finding that VUSD would have justifiably terminated the employee notwithstanding her protected union activity. Therefore, the court granted VUSD's petition and set aside the Board's decision. View "Visalia Unified School Dist. v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of August 1, 2018, Gwendolyn Adams and Glenn Tyler Bolden were pursued in a high-speed chase by Michael William Becker, a peace officer employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Becker suspected Adams and Bolden of wrongdoing, although his suspicions were unfounded. The pursuit resulted in a catastrophic accident that caused severe injuries and, ultimately, the death of Adams's son, D'son Woods.Adams and Bolden filed a lawsuit against the CDCR, alleging negligence causing wrongful death, assault and battery, and violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. The CDCR sought summary judgment, arguing that Becker was not acting within the scope of his employment during the pursuit. The trial court agreed and entered judgment in favor of CDCR.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three reversed and remanded the case. The appellate court found that whether Becker was acting within the scope of his employment when he pursued Adams and Bolden was a question of fact that should be decided by a jury. The court noted that Becker’s actions may have been influenced by his role as a peace officer, and it was not clear whether he was acting as a private citizen or a law enforcement officer during the pursuit. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the CDCR. View "Adams v. Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

In this case, Maria Ruiz Perez and minor children of the deceased, Hector Evangelista and Giselle Evangelista, filed a lawsuit against the Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) after a tragic accident resulted in the deaths of Hector and Giselle. The accident occurred when their vehicle overturned and landed in a drain, leading to their drowning. The plaintiffs contended that the water level in the drain, which was a public property managed by the OID, was a dangerous condition that led to the fatalities. However, the Superior Court of Stanislaus County granted summary judgment in favor of OID, citing "canal immunity" under Government Code, § 831.8, subd. (b), which immunizes the state or an irrigation district from liability for injuries caused by the condition of canals, conduits, or drains if the injured party was using the property for a purpose other than its intended use.The plaintiffs appealed this decision, arguing that canal immunity should apply only when the injured party intentionally used the public property in a manner not intended by the government. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District rejected this interpretation. Instead, the appellate court held that canal immunity applies when the injured person interacts with the canal, conduit, or drain in a manner not intended by the government, regardless of whether that interaction was intentional or involuntary. The court based this interpretation on the legislative intent behind the statute, which was to define the scope of immunity in terms of how foreseeable the injury was to the government, rather than the degree of responsibility assumed by the injured party. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of OID. View "Perez v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist." on Justia Law

In the case of Planning and Conservation League et al., v. Department of Water Resources heard in the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, the court considered whether the Department of Water Resources’ (department) approval of amendments to long-term contracts with local government agencies that receive water through the State Water Project violated various laws. The amendments extended the contracts to 2085 and expanded the facilities listed as eligible for revenue bond financing. Several conservation groups and public agencies challenged the amendments, arguing they violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act (Delta Reform Act), and the public trust doctrine. However, the court held that the department did not violate CEQA, the Delta Reform Act, or the public trust doctrine, and therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the department. The court found that the department used the correct baseline for its environmental impact report (EIR), properly segmented the amendments from related projects, and adequately considered the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the amendments. The court also held that the department adequately described the project and considered a reasonable range of alternatives, and that recirculation of the EIR was not required. The court rejected arguments that the amendments violated the Delta Reform Act or the public trust doctrine, finding that they did not impact "water that is imbued with the public trust." The court concluded that the department acted within its authority in approving and executing the amendments. View "Planning and Conservation League v. Dept. of Water Resources" on Justia Law

In the case of Joshua Zamora Gonzales v. California Victim Compensation Board, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Two affirmed a lower court ruling that upheld the California Victim Compensation Board's denial of compensation to Gonzales. Gonzales was previously convicted of a gang-related shooting but had his convictions overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit due to insufficiency of evidence. Subsequently, he applied for compensation for the time he was wrongfully imprisoned. The Board denied his claim, finding that he failed to prove his factual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence. Gonzales then filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, which was denied by the lower court. Upon appeal, the appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding substantial evidence supported the Board's ruling that Gonzales failed to establish his factual innocence. View "Gonzales v. California Victim Compensation Bd." on Justia Law

In the case brought before the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, the petitioners, First Amendment Coalition and KQED Inc., sought public access to certain records in the possession of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, relating to peace officers and custodial officers. The records primarily pertained to instances of use of force, discharge of firearms, and sustained findings of dishonesty or sexual assault by an officer, which were considered nonconfidential under section 832.7(b) of the Penal Code.However, the Department withheld certain records citing exemptions under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) due to other state laws prohibiting their disclosure. The petitioners filed a motion for judgment compelling disclosure of these withheld documents but were denied by the trial court.The court, applying rules of statutory construction, concluded that section 832.7(b) of the Penal Code supersedes state law disclosure exemptions that conflict with its decree that records within its scope are not confidential and shall be made available to the public. As such, the court ordered a directive for the respondent court to vacate its judgment to the extent it denies the petitioners’ motion for judgment based on Government Code section 11183, which prohibits the disclosure of subpoenaed records. In all other respects, the petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "First Amendment Coalition v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In a case before the Court of Appeal of the State of California, the appellants, Stephon Anthony, Rafael Campbell, Samuel Flowers, and Anthony B. Price, were seeking relief from their first degree murder convictions on multiple grounds. The court found that the trial court was entitled to consider the jury's intent-to-kill findings at the prima facie stage, but that these findings did not preclude relief as a matter of law. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, the court agreed with the People that recent amendment of the gang statutes requires retrial or resentencing on gang-related special-circumstance and enhancement allegations. The court also ordered a remand to strike the multiple-murder special circumstance for Campbell, Flowers, and Price, and to reconsider sentencing on their Vehicle Code convictions in light of recent legislative changes. The court affirmed the trial court's decision not to strike the enhancements and prior strikes. View "P. v. Campbell" on Justia Law

A California appellate court ruled on a case where a journalist, Arturo Castañares, sought access to video footage recorded by drones operated by the City of Chula Vista Police Department. Castañares filed a request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) for video footage from all drone flights for a specific month. The City provided Castañares with all the information he requested except for the video footage, leading Castañares to file a lawsuit. The trial court ruled that the video footage was exempt from disclosure due to being classified as records of investigations and that the burden of redacting the footage outweighed the benefit of disclosing. Upon appeal, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in determining that all drone footage was exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. The court determined that the drone footage could be divided into three categories: footage that is part of an investigatory file, footage of investigations, and footage of factual inquiries. The first two categories are exempt from disclosure under the CPRA, while the third is not. The case was remanded for further proceedings, with the City asked to categorize the footage accordingly and argue why the catchall provision applies to the third category. View "Castanares v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In this case, an accident occurred where Sara Spagnolini, a provider under the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, ran a stop sign and crashed into a car driven by Hanah Keren Samson Yalung. Yalung and four of her five children were seriously injured, and one child was killed. Yalung, individually and as an administrator of her deceased daughter's estate and guardian ad litem for her other children, sued the State of California, among others, for Spagnolini's negligence.The plaintiffs argued that the State was liable for Spagnolini's negligence as her employer or as a joint employer with Spagnolini's recipient under the IHSS program. The Superior Court of Tulare County, however, sustained the State's demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend. The trial court did not find the statutory scheme made the State the employer or joint employer of IHSS providers for all purposes, noting that no cases held the State was an employer for purposes of vicarious liability.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the IHSS statutes are incompatible with a finding of joint employment as a matter of law. The court found that while the State administers the IHSS program and has some oversight responsibilities, it does not control or direct the day-to-day tasks or activities of IHSS providers. Accordingly, the State could not be deemed an employer or joint employer for the purposes of vicarious liability. View "Yalung v. State of California" on Justia Law