California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Cardenas is that a trial court must allow a defendant who exercises his or her right to a jury trial under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(2) the opportunity to argue to the jury what findings it should make as to alleged aggravating circumstances, under circumstances where the defendant has asserted the right to jury trial on aggravating factors that could be used to impose an upper term sentence.

The Rule of The Chemical Toxin Working Group Inc. v. Best Naturals, Inc. is that Proposition 65 pre-suit notice requirements under California Code of Regulations, title 27, section 25903 are satisfied by substantial compliance rather than strict compliance, under circumstances where the notice serves the regulation's underlying purposes of allowing investigation, cure, and settlement of alleged violations.

The Rule of People v. Russo is that a trial court may properly deny mental health diversion when a defendant proposes returning to the same treatment program that previously failed to address their mental health needs without demonstrating how the current proposal would be significantly different, under circumstances where the defendant completed the identical program before but immediately relapsed and committed new offenses.

The Rule of Greely v. Greely is that a judgment creditor cannot use the spousal exception under Code of Civil Procedure section 700.160(b)(2) to levy on deposit accounts held in the name of a bigamous spouse without a court order, because a bigamous marriage is void ab initio and the supporting spousal affidavit is therefore false, under circumstances where the marriage was bigamous at inception regardless of whether it has been formally annulled.

The Rule of People v. Mitchell is that defendants who agreed to upper term sentences as part of plea bargains may seek retroactive application of Penal Code section 1170(b)'s amended jury trial requirements to their nonfinal judgments, under circumstances where the defendant did not validly waive the later-created statutory rights at the time of the original plea.

The Rule of Nuanmanee v. Superior Court is that a defendant has not been "brought to trial" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1382 when the trial court holds hearings on motions in limine but cannot empanel a jury due to the court's administrative policy, under circumstances where the court has a standing practice of reserving certain days for non-jury matters that prevents jury empanelment on the statutory deadline.

The Rule of In re K.L. is that DCFS satisfies its ICWA initial inquiry duty when it contacts parents and reasonably available extended family members, even if some extended family members remain unreachable despite good faith efforts, under circumstances where the agency attempted contact, obtained disconnected phone numbers, and family members declined to provide contact information without the missing person's consent.

The Rule of People v. Lopez-Tapia is that the lower term presumption under Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) requires evidence that childhood trauma was a contributing factor to the specific offense, not merely that trauma contributed to general gang involvement, under circumstances where a defendant claims childhood trauma should trigger mandatory lower term sentencing.

The Rule of Department of Human Resources v. California Correctional Peace Officers Association is that an arbitrator does not exceed their powers by issuing an award that offsets an SPB-approved disciplinary suspension when the award is based on violations of the Dills Act and MOU protections for union activity, under circumstances where the SPB reviewed the disciplinary action for cause under the Civil Service Act while the arbitrator separately reviewed whether the same discipline constituted unlawful retaliation for protected activities.

The Rule of Sargenti v. City of Long Beach is that a public entity lacks constructive notice of a dangerous condition when the only evidence of the condition's duration is an unauthenticated Google Street View screenshot, and serving amended interrogatory responses that correct factual errors does not automatically create a triable issue of material fact on summary judgment, under circumstances where the moving party corrects inadvertent errors in discovery responses and the opposing party fails to provide admissible evidence disputing the corrections or authenticating photographic evidence.

The Rule of J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc. is that an educational technology company that collects and stores student medical information to help school districts assess educational needs is not a "provider of health care" under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), and students are not "customers" under the Customer Records Act (CRA), under circumstances where the company provides services to school districts rather than directly to individuals for medical diagnosis/treatment or personal health record management.

The Rule of People v. Wilmot is that a trial court commits prejudicial error when it modifies a CALCRIM jury instruction to require that a killing be "unintentional" for voluntary manslaughter, under circumstances where the modification incorrectly suggests that an intentional killing in the heat of passion cannot qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

The Rule of Hiller v. Marin Municipal Water District is that challenges to water rate ordinances must be brought through validation proceedings within 120 days of adoption, and failure to participate in a water district's validation action bars all subsequent constitutional and substantive challenges to the rates, under Government Code section 53759's mandatory validation statute requirements.

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a criminal defendant charged with specific intent crimes such as conspiracy and trespass with intent to interfere has a constitutional right to present evidence of his good faith but mistaken belief that his conduct was legally justified under the necessity defense, even though the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where the defendant relied on legal opinions advising that his actions were lawful.

The Rule of J.N. et al. v. Jeffrey Goldberg is that a motion for Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 sanctions must comply with statutory notice requirements by specifying the hearing date in the initial notice of motion to trigger the mandatory 21-day safe harbor period, under circumstances where the superior court's electronic Court Reservation System makes it impossible to obtain a hearing date more than three days in advance but the safe harbor period requires 21 days.

The Rule of Cardenas v. Los Angeles Unified School District is that appellate arguments are forfeited when the opening brief cites only to trial court briefing that itself contains no record citations, under circumstances where the appellate brief fails to provide direct citations to record evidence supporting factual assertions.

The Rule of SVF Grosvenor Del Rey Corporation v. Schwarz is that when a three-day notice to pay rent or quit offers payment by mail as an option, the notice must include the name, telephone number, and address of the specific person to whom rent is to be mailed, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2).

The Rule of Phillips v. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC is that under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, a component manufacturer's duty to replace goods or reimburse the buyer is limited to the goods the manufacturer itself sold and warranted, not to the entire consumer product incorporating the component, under circumstances where the component manufacturer issued an express warranty only for its component part.

The Rule of People v. Mijares is that a defendant's attack remains the but-for cause and proximate cause of death even when the victim suffers from serious preexisting medical conditions, under circumstances where the coroner testifies that the defendant's assault caused the death and the victim would have survived at least several more years absent the attack.

The Rule of People v. Morris is that under Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e)(2), a nonkiller defendant must aid or abet the actual killer in the lethal act itself, not just the underlying felony, under the amended felony-murder rule where the defendant acted with intent to kill.