LEG Investments v. Boxler, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (2010). Establishes right of a cotenant who wishes to sell his or her interest in the property to obtain a court-ordered partition if the other co-tenant declines an offer of first refusal to purchase
In re Estate of Kievernagel, 166 Cal.App.4th 1024 (2009). Husband and wife, unable to conceive, attempted in vitro fertilization. Husband gave sperm samples to be preserved and used if necessary as backup samples. He gave written instructions that the preserved sperm should be destroyed if he died or became incapacitated. He died in an accident before the procedure began. Wife claimed that, as the surviving spouse, she should be entitled to use the preserved sperm in further efforts to conceive. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding that husband’s intention controlled and the sperm sample should be destroyed in accordance with his express, written direction.
Bowen v. Ryan, 163 Cal.App.4th 916 (2008). In an action against a dentist alleging that he assaulted a child patient, the court allowed plaintiff to present testimony from other patients and their parents complaining that the dentist had mistreated them in various ways. The jury awarded a $90,000 verdict to plaintiff. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the testimony of other patients and their parents was inadmissible evidence intended to show only the dentist’s general bad character.
300 DeHaro Street Investors v. Department of Housing and Community Development, 161 Cal.App.4th 1240 (2008). Plaintiff entered into a contract with the department to provide low-income housing. The contract incorporated departmental regulations establishing standards and procedures and governing increases in rent. After the project had operated a few years, plaintiff asked the department to approve a rent increase. The department refused and plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The trial court held that plaintiff could not sue for breach of contract, but had to bring a special proceeding, a writ of administrative mandate, because plaintiff’s claim rested on the standards and procedures embodied in the department’s regulations. The court of appeal reversed, holding that, as the regulations were incorporated into the contract, plaintiff did not have to petition for a writ of mandate but could sue directly for breach of contract.
to top
Katiuzhinsky v. Perry, 152 Cal.App.4th 1288 (2007). Plaintiffs, seriously injured in an automobile accident, had no health coverage. Their doctors and the hospital where they were treated agreed to provide medical services at their full, customary rates, and to then sell the resulting accounts receivable to a third party company at a discount. Plaintiffs, however, remained liable to the company that bought the receivables for the full amount the medical providers had charged. The trial court held that plaintiffs’ damages for medical care were limited to the discounted price at which the medical providers had sold their accounts to the third party. The court of appeal reversed, distinguishing its own earlier decision on which the trial court had relied. The court of appeal held that plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the full amounts the medical providers charged for their services, since those were the amounts plaintiffs were obligated to pay.
Jones v. Catholic Healthcare West, 147 Cal.App.4th 300 (2007). Before suing for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must give 90-days notice to the health care provider of intent to sue. If the notice is sent within 90 days of the date the statute of limitation would run, the statute of limitation is extended. In Jones, plaintiff’s lawyer sent the notice by fax on the last day of the statute of limitations. He then filed the lawsuit within the next 90 days. The trial court ruled the faxed notice was invalid and did not extend the statute of limitation because the Code of Civil Procedure requires an express, written agreement before documents may be served by fax, and there was no such agreement in Jones. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the fax notice was good. The section of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring a signed, written agreement for fax service applies only to documents served after a lawsuit is commenced, and does not apply to the pre-lawsuit notice of intent to sue.
Hahn v. Mirda, 147 Cal.App.4th 740 (2007). Plaintiff’s wife was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer based on a biopsy. She underwent a radical mastectomy and related surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy, but did not survive. After her death, plaintiff learned for the first time the biopsy was incorrect and his wife did not have breast cancer. He sued, alleging that the doctors’ failure to inform him and his wife that the biopsy had been erroneous caused her to undergo needless surgeries and procedures, ultimately causing her death. The trial court held that the doctors had no obligation to inform plaintiff or his wife that the biopsy was erroneous because a physician’s duty is only to provide information a patient may need to give informed consent to treatment. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit. The court of appeal reversed, holding that a physician must give a patient all information relevant to the patient’s condition.
to top
Slayton v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.4th 55 (2006). In a marital dissolution proceeding where child custody and visitation were in dispute, wife served a subpoena for the personnel records of husband, a deputy sheriff who had been put on leave and ultimately fired as the result of citizen complaints having to do with his conduct toward women in the community. The trial court quashed the subpoena, holding that wife was not entitled to the records under a case, Pitchess, that restricts the ability of a criminal defendant to obtain personnel records of the arresting officers. The court of appeal granted a writ of mandate directing the trial court to enforce the subpoena and compel the sheriff’s department to turn over the files. Pitchess, the court held, applies only in criminal cases and has no effect in a family law proceeding where one parent seeks evidence that may bear on the other parent’s fitness to have custody of or visitation with their children.
Hawkins v. Wilton, 144 Cal.App.4th 936 (2006). Plaintiff, who lived in an apartment complex, was shot in the face by another tenant for no apparent reason while they stood on the sidewalk. Plaintiff alleged the shooter was actually the apartment manager. The landlords denied he was the manager and moved to dismiss the lawsuit. Plaintiff presented evidence that shooter had been designated as the apartment manager, and that the landlords had ignored repeated complaints and warnings from other tenants that the shooter, an ex-felon, was dealing drugs and carrying weapons, and had pulled a gun on another tenant. The trial court held that plaintiff could not show the owners had any responsibility for the shooting and dismissed the lawsuit. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the evidence showed the owners had knowledge of the shooter’s dangerous propensities and, even if he was only a tenant and not the manager, the landlords had a duty to protect other tenants from the obvious danger he presented.
Marriage of Klug, 130 Cal.App.4th 1389 (2005). During a marital dissolution proceeding but before the marriage was terminated, wife filed a lawsuit for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against the lawyer who had acted as estate planning attorney for her and husband. She alleged the lawyer had created an asset-protection plan that allowed husband to unilaterally transfer community assets into foreign accounts and trusts beyond the reach of an American court, depriving wife of her ability to reach her own community property. The court held that, even though the wife's lawsuit was based on the lawyer's conduct during the marriage, her lawsuit and the settlement she received were her separate property, not community assets in which husband had an interest.
to top
Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass'n v. Fair Employment and Housing Com'n, 121 Cal.App.4th 1578 (2004): Disability discrimination in housing. Married couple renting in a planned development both suffered severe, disabling depression. Their psychiatrist verified that they both benefitted substantially from a companion animal, Pooky, a rescued fox terrier mix. The homeowners’ association ruled that a companion animal violated association rules against household pets. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission ruled that Pooky was a reasonable accommodation for the tenants’ disabilities and awarded the tenants damages. The court of appeal upheld the Commission’s action. The case drew national attention and the decision has been cited as precedent by courts around the country.
Banning v. Newdow, 119 Cal.App.4th 438 (2004). The court rejected a claim that child custody laws are unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments in allowing a court to order one parent to pay the other parent’s attorney fees and court costs.
to top
