California Legal Brief

The Rule of **People v. Diaz** is that trial courts are not required to expressly state they have considered a defendant's youth when determining whether the defendant acted with express malice/intent to kill in section 1172.6 proceedings, under circumstances where the court is aware of the defendant's age and counsel argues youth as a mitigating factor but the court finds the defendant personally intended the victims' deaths.

The Rule of People v. Gomez is that use of animal imagery in criminal proceedings does not violate the Racial Justice Act when the animal reference is benign, endearing, and used solely to explain legal concepts rather than to dehumanize or exhibit racial bias, under circumstances where an objective observer would understand the comparison relates to the state of evidence rather than character traits.

The Rule of Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc. is that a costs judgment entered after a nonappealable voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not appealable as a final judgment when the appellant seeks to challenge underlying orders rather than the costs determination itself, under circumstances where allowing the appeal would constitute impermissible back-door review of nonappealable orders.

The Rule of Maynard Matthews et al. v. Patrick Ryan is that a section 998 settlement offer conditioned on consent by the defendant's insurance carrier is valid, under circumstances where the defendant is defended by an insurer whose consent is necessarily required for any settlement regardless of whether such consent is expressly stated in the offer.

The Rule of Conservatorship of B.K. is that an LPS Act conservatee may waive their jury trial right through counsel without a personal on-the-record advisement when the conservatee acknowledges awareness of the right and confirms the waiver choice, under circumstances where counsel has consulted with the conservatee, there is no suggestion counsel lacks authority or disregards the client's wishes, and the conservatee participates in the proceedings without objection.

The Rule of Department of Water Resources v. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is that a state agency's definition of a proposed program must be sufficiently definite to ascertain whether it qualifies as a statutory "modification" of an existing authorized project rather than a new unit requiring separate legislative approval, under circumstances where the agency seeks to validate revenue bonds based on broad definitional language that fails to establish clear boundaries or purposes for the proposed facilities.

The Rule of In re Lynex is that to obtain appointed counsel under the California Racial Justice Act, an indigent habeas petitioner need only plead a "plausible allegation" of a violation of Penal Code section 745(a), which is an "extremely low" and "minimal pleading requirement" that does not require a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, under circumstances where the petitioner seeks counsel to prosecute racial bias claims in criminal proceedings.

The Rule of People v. Dixon is that grand jury proceeding transcripts are not admissible under Penal Code section 1172.6(d)(3)'s hearsay exception for evidence previously admitted at a prior hearing or trial, under circumstances where the Legislature used specific statutory language referring to "hearings" and "trials" while grand jury proceedings are designated as "proceedings" or "sessions" in the statutory scheme and lack adversarial safeguards.

The Rule of Joel Praneet Siam is that when determining whether a defendant's symptoms would respond to treatment under Penal Code section 1001.36(c)(1), a trial court may not override a qualified mental health expert's opinion with its own lay opinion about treatment responsiveness, under circumstances where a licensed psychologist provides an uncontroverted expert opinion that the defendant's mental disorder symptoms would respond to treatment.

The Rule of Anaheim Police Department v. Crockett is that a gun violence restraining order may be issued against a firearm owner who fails to adequately secure weapons from a prohibited person who poses a credible threat of violence, under circumstances where the firearm owner enables access to weapons by someone with a documented mental health history and lifetime firearms prohibition who has made specific threats of mass violence.

The Rule of Zenith Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is that equitable tolling of the 60-day deadline under former Labor Code section 5909 cannot justify the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's 20-month delay in issuing a decision on reconsideration after granting a petition for "further study," under circumstances where the Board failed to demonstrate reasonable and good faith conduct in attempting to comply with statutory procedures.

The Rule of Microsoft Corporation v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County is that a trial court may issue a nondisclosure order prohibiting an electronic service provider from notifying its enterprise customer of a search warrant's existence, under circumstances where the court has reviewed a sealed affidavit and found that disclosure could cause adverse results enumerated in CalECPA, even when the provider proposes to notify only a "trusted contact" at the customer organization who is not the target of the investigation.

The Rule of Higginson is that dismissal of a CLRA claim for failure to file a concurrent venue affidavit must be without prejudice (with leave to amend), not with prejudice, under Civil Code section 1780(d), and that unremedied discovery misuse that deprives a party of material evidence required for trial warrants a new trial and monetary sanctions, under circumstances where a party falsely verifies that responsive documents "never existed" and the court's remedial jury instruction becomes ineffective due to evidentiary exclusions.

The Rule of People v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Lashelle) is that the failure to file a misdemeanor complaint within the 25-day period specified in Penal Code section 853.6 does not deprive the government of the right to demand a cited person's presence in court and does not render the individual "automatically freed from any restraint," under circumstances where the defendant signed a written promise to appear and remains subject to statutory consequences for non-appearance including criminal prosecution, fines, and arrest.

The Rule of Santa Clara Valley Water District v. Eisenberg is that the claim and delivery law does not preclude a party from seeking preliminary injunctive relief to recover possession of personal property, under Code of Civil Procedure section 516.050, even after the party has already obtained a writ of possession and turnover order under the claim and delivery statutes.

The Rule of Vallejo City Unified School District v. Superior Court is that a school district is immune from liability under Education Code section 44808 for harm to parents caused by a student's off-campus suicide, under circumstances where the student was not and should not have been under the immediate and direct supervision of district employees at the time of death, even if the district was allegedly negligent in its on-campus supervision and response to the student's mental health crisis.

The Rule of De Paolo is that a terminated resident manager whose occupancy was contingent solely upon employment has no right to continue possession after employment termination and is not entitled to Tenant Protection Act protections, under circumstances where the resident manager's agreement explicitly conditioned occupancy on continued employment and required vacation within 30 days of termination.

The Rule of Spring Oaks Capital SPV, LLC v. Fowler is that a party who fails to properly disclose witness names and addresses in response to a Code of Civil Procedure section 96 request cannot call that undisclosed witness at trial, under circumstances where the responding party only provided the witness's role without specific name identification and the requesting party properly objected.

The Rule of People v. J.C. is that the firearm prohibition under Penal Code section 29820, subdivision (b), does not apply to minors adjudicated as juvenile court wards for brandishing an imitation firearm under Penal Code section 417.4, under circumstances where section 417.4 is not among the statutorily enumerated offenses in section 29805 that trigger the firearm ban.

The Rule of Gerard v. Cuevas is that a trial court cannot retroactively shorten a notice period under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987 to 91 minutes and then impose a terminating sanction when the defendant fails to appear, under circumstances where the original notice was untimely served and the court had not previously ordered shortened time.