Decisions in Criminal, Education, Administrative, Government Contracts & Tort Matters
Speilman v. Ex'Pression Ctr. for New Media, A122357, concerned plaintiffs' suit against defendant-private postsecondary educational institution, which offers courses in sound arts, digital visual medial, and Web design and development, for violation of Education Code former sections 94312, 94832, and 94875, as well as various other causes of action, claiming that defendant made certain misrepresentations to them, including that it would soon be nationally accredited, that they would graduate from the school with degrees from a nationally accredited institution, that their degrees and credits would be transferable to other accredited institutions.
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court in part where: 1)
defendant's argument that plaintiffs' claims have been abated by the
repeal of the Reform Act, including section 94877, effective January
1,2008 is rejected; and 2) there is nothing in the statutes under
consideration that would invite or countenance the addition of elements
that are not contained in the plain language, particularly where the law
expressly states that the remedies provided supplement, but do not
supplant, the remedies provided under other provisions of law. The
court affirmed in part as, the trial court properly sustained the
demurrer to the first cause of action of the second amended complaint as
to the demurrer plaintiffs. Further, because there is sufficient
evidence to support the conclusion that the directed verdict plaintiffs
owed the disputed amounts to defendant, trial court properly denied
plaintiffs' motion for directed verdict.
People v. James, F057974,
concerned defendant's challenge to the trial court's admission of
evidence of a prior instance of domestic
violence against the victim and evidence of a prior act of domestic
violence against one of defendant's former girlfriends, in a prosecution
of defendant for first degree burglary. In affirming, the court held
that Evidence Code section 1109 allows for the admission of evidence of a
defendant's commission of prior acts of domestic violence as propensity
evidence when the defendant is accused of "an offense involving
domestic violence," and here, "an offense involving domestic violence"
may include the crime of burglary.
Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes, C059239,
concerned a challenge to the jury's finding that defendant-town
breached a development agreement and an award of $30 million in damages
to the plaintiff-developer, in the developer's suit against a town for
anticipatory breach of contract.
In affirming, the court held that administrative mandamus is not the
exclusive remedy, under the circumstances of this case, where there has
been an anticipatory breach of the development agreement not involving a
quasi-judicial determination. The court also held that the three
clauses of the development agreement do not provide a defense to the
plaintiff's breach of contract action, and that the plaintiff
established a breach attributable to the town by evidence of the actions
of town officials, acting within their authority. The court held that
evidence of damages in the form of lost profits was not too speculative
to support the $30 million damages award. Lastly, the court held that
the town's contention that the award of attorney fees must be reversed
is without merit because the town's sole argument for reversal of the
attorney fees award is that it was based on the plaintiff's status as
the prevailing party.
Lawson v. Safeway, Inc., A125209,
concerned plaintiffs' suit against Safeway, a driver of a Safeway
truck, the driver of a pickup, and the State of California, arising from
an automobile accident on a U.S. highway, allegedly caused by the
illegally parked Safeway tractor trailer on the highway. In affirming
the jury verdict awarding substantial damages to the plaintiffs and
apportioning 35 percent fault to Safeway, and 35 percent to the State of
California, and 30 percent to the driver of the pickup, the court held
that a duty to park safely, as well as legally, was owed because of the
particular facts of this case, where the parked vehicle was a 65-foot
long, 12-1/2 foot tall, 8 1/2-foot wide commercial truck and the
evidence showed that the drivers of such trucks are or should be
professionally trained to be aware of the risk of blocking other
drivers' sight lines when parking, the truck was parked at a high-speed
well-traveled intersection, and a safe parking spot was available right
around the corner.
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC, B222539,
concerned a challenge to the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion
to amend the judgment to add
the manager, the trustee, and two other affiliated companies as judgment
debtors, in proceedings to satisfy an $8.45 million judgment against
defendant's companies for breach of contract. In reversing, the court
held that it would not always be inequitable to add as a judgment debtor
a party who prevailed in an arbitration, but rather, it would depend on
the facts of the case, and here, the manager was not sued for breach of
contract and did not prevail on that claim, and the addition of the
manager as a judgment debtor would not constitute a finding that he
breached the companies' contract, but would instead serve to remedy his
alleged disregard of the companies' separate existence. Further,
although a trust is not subject to the alter ego doctrine because it is
not a legal entity, a trustee may be added as a judgment debtor.
Lastly, the court held that, with certain exceptions, the trial court
erred in sustaining the objections to plaintiff's evidence.
California Sch. Boards Ass'n v. State Bd. of Educ., C061328,
concerned a challenge to the validity of various regulations adopted by
the State Board of Education (State Board) pertaining to a public
school district's sharing of its facilities with charter schools,
pursuant to a voter approved Proposition 39. The court affirmed the
trial court's judgment upholding the majority of the challenged
regulations and reversed the portion of the trial court's judgment
setting aside several of the regulations, in holding that the
regulations, in their entirety, were valid.
Related Links:
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.