Case Updates

Preservation Action Council of San Jose v. City of San Jose (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2023 WL 3365082” The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn respondent’s approval of certification of a final supplemental environmental impact report (Final SEIR) for a proposed development of three, high-rise office towers as part of the City View Plaza Office Project sitting on an eight-acre site containing several historic structures in downtown San Jose. Conducting a de novo review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Final SEIR adequately discussed mitigation for the unavoidable loss of significant historic resources and complied with the California Environmental Quality Act. (C.A. 6th, filed April 18, 2023, published May 10, 2023.) Read more

NCR Properties v. City of Berkeley (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2023 WL 2423352: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying petitions seeking administrative mandamus and declaratory relief. Petitioners purchased two derelict single-family homes in Berkeley and rehabilitated them, converting them into triplexes. After plaintiffs rented out the units, a dispute arose as to whether the properties were subject to the City of Berkeley’s Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance, Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.76. Read more

A monthly publication of the Litigation Section of the California Lawyers Association. Read more

Atkins v. St. Cecilia Catholic School (CA2/8 B314220 4/28/23) Ministerial Exception The trial court granted St. Cecilia’s motion for summary judgment on Atkins’ age discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) Read more

A monthly publication of the Litigation Section of the California Lawyers Association. Read more

In this case, the trial court erred in two respects when it signed husband’s QDRO. First, it erroneously used husband’s rank and salary at the time of the parties’ separation to calculate the community interest in his pension instead of his final rank and salary at the time of his retirement, as required by the time rule. This was error because “[u]nder the traditional time rule, the fraction of service during marriage divided by total service must be ‘multiplied by the final plan benefit to determine the community interest.’” and “because the community property interest at issue—the right to retirement benefits—'is a right to draw from a stream of income Read more

A monthly publication of the Litigation Section of the California Lawyers Association. Read more

The California Public Records Act exempts from disclosure “[r]ecords of state agencies related to activities governed by [the Ralph C. Dills Act granting collective bargaining rights to state employees] that reveal a state agency’s deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy.” (§ 6254, subd. (p)(1).) Under its plain language and applying the canon of ejusdem generis, the exemption is not limited to documents that reveal an agency’s deliberative processes. The California Department of Human Resources was not required to search the State Controller’s database for CPRA-responsive records because Read more

For more federal courts content, please see the Quarterly Federal Courts Committee Newsletter. This quarter’s newsletter includes an interview with the Hon. Michael R. Wilner, a Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of California and an interview with Mack Jenkins, Chief of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. Read more

Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.97 and 1281.98 provide that if a company or business that drafts an arbitration agreement does not pay its share of required arbitration fees or costs within 30 days after they are due, the company or business is in “material breach” of the arbitration agreement, and an employee or consumer can, among other things, withdraw his or her claim from arbitration and proceed in court. The trial court correctly allowed De Leon’s claims to proceed in court when Juanita’s Foods was late paying arbitration fees because the statutory 30-day deadline is a bright-line rule that does not give the trial court discretion to consider additional factors such as delay or prejudice. Read more