Check out Monty McIntyre’s new FREE feature, Monty’s Case Commentary, where he discusses interesting newly published cases. This is in audio MP3 format, so you can listen to it whenever and wherever they want to. Here is the link.
California Case Summaries™ (https://cacasesummaries.com)
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™ which provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case helping California lawyers easily keep up with the new case law and fight for their clients. Monthly, quarterly, and annual single-user and discounted multi-user subscriptions are available. Monty hasbeen a California civil trial lawyer since 1980, a member of ABOTA since 1995, and currently works as a full-time mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. (ADR) where he conducts Zoom hearings throughout California.
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Parkford Owners for a Better Community v. County of Placer (2020) _ Cal.App. 5th _ , 2020 WL 5542986: The Court of Appeal dismissed, as moot, petitioner’s appeal from the trial court’s order denying a writ petition challenging respondent’s issuance of a permit allowing the expansion of a commercial self-storage facility. The appeal was moot because the expansion construction was completed before the entry of the trial court’s judgment. (C.A. 3rd, filed August 26, 2020, published September 16, 2020.)
City of Brentwood v. Department of Finance (2020) _ Cal.App. 5th _ , 2020 WL 5405721: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandate seeking to obtain reimbursement for construction costs incurred in five redevelopment projects. The trial court properly rejected petitioner’s argument that public improvement agreements (PIAs) between petitioner and its former redevelopment agency (RDA) qualified as enforceable obligations under Health & Safety Code, section 34191.4 (b)(1), a 2015 amendment to the dissolution statutes. The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that the PIAs were not enforceable obligations because they were entered into after the fact, after petitioner had adopted resolutions to fund construction of the five projects and entered into the construction contracts. (C.A. 3rd, filed August 11, 2020, published September 9, 2020.)
Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020) _ Cal.App. 5th _ , 2020 WL 5423001: The Court of Appeal reversed one issue decided by the trial court, but affirmed the remaining issues in favor of the swap meet owner in a landlord-tenant type action arising from the operation of a hair dressing salon in a swap meet. The Court of Appeal concluded that the swap meet owner was not entitled to withhold $680.00 of the security deposit to cover the expense of repairing damage to the premises caused by the removal of a sink/cabinet unit, a water heater and some decorative molding when the vendor vacated the premises, because the parties did not specifically agree that the security deposit could be used to cover repairs. (C.A. 4th, filed August 18, 2020, published September 10, 2020.)