Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Volume32013verdictgreensheetsviiAddressingovertimewagerulesforprivatesecurityguards.Mendiolav.CPSSecuritySolutionscaseno.S212704formerlypublishedat217Cal.App.4th851.InthesewageandhourclassactionsbroughtagainstdefendantswhoemployedsecurityguardsforbuildingconstructionsitestheCourtofAppealheldthatguardsareentitledtocompensationfornighttimeoncallhourswhentheshiworkedconsistsofeighthoursonpatrolandeighthourson-callatthepremises.Howevertheemployerispermittedtodeducteighthoursofsleeptimeforguardsworking24-hourshis.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober162013todecidethefollowingissueAretheguardsthatdefendantsprovideforconstructionsitesecurityentitledtocompensationforallnighttimeoncallhoursormaydefendantsdeductsleeptimedependingonthestructureoftheguardsworkshisAddressingcompetenceofexperttestimonytorebutVehicleCodepresumptionofalcoholbloodlevelsandcompetenceofcontrarycircumstancialevidencetosustainndingconsistentwithfactastowhichstatutorypresumptionhadbeenrebutted.Coffeyv.Shiomotocaseno.S213545formerlypublishedat218Cal.App.4th1288.Plaintiwasarrestedfordrivingundertheinuence.Anhouraershewaspulledovershetookabreathalyzertest.etestresultwas0.08percentblood-alcoholcontentBAC.Afewminuteslatershetookanothertestresultingina0.09percentBAC.Twenty-veminuteslatershetookabloodtestresultingin0.095percentBAC.eDepartmentofMotorVehiclesDMVsuspendedherlicenseaerconductinganAdministrativePerSeAPShearing.etrialcourtdeniedapetitionforawritofmandatechallengingtheDMVruling.OnappealplainticontendstheuncontradictedexperttestimonyattheAPShearingdemonstratedherBACwasrisingthroughoutthethreetestsandthusbelow0.08percentatthetimeshewasdriving.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.reeheld1anexpertstestimonythatthemotoristsBACwasrisingasindicatedbysubsequentvalidchemicaltestswassucienttorebutthethreehourpresumptionofVehicleCodesection213152subdivisionbhowever2non-chemicaltestcircumstantialevidenceinthepresenceofavalidBACchemicaltestconstitutedsubstantialevidencesucienttosustainandingthatthemotoristsBACwasatleast0.08percentatthetimeofdriving.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober302012toaddressthefollowingquestions1Cancircumstantialevidenceotherthantheresultsofchemicaltestsbeusedtoprovethatadriversblood-alcoholcontentatthetimeofdrivingwasthesameasorgreaterthantheresultsofablood-alcoholtesttakenapproximatelyanhouraerdriving2IsthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealconsistentwiththerequirementsofEvidenceCodesection604forproofofaninitiallypresumedfactaerthepresumptionhasbeenrebuttedAddressingscopeofborrowerprotectionsunderanti-deciencylawsandthesecurityrstrule.Cokerv.JPMorganChaseBankN.A.caseno.S213137formerlypublishedat218Cal.App.4th1.Aborrowerwasunabletomakehermortgagepaymentsandagreedtosellherhousetoathirdpartytoavoidforeclosure.Howeverthesalepricewaslessthantheamounttheborrowerowedonherloan.emortgagelenderagreedtotheshortsalebutasaconditionofapprovalstatedthattheborrowerwouldberesponsibleforanydeciency.eborrowerledacomplaintfordeclaratoryreliefseekingajudicialdeterminationthatCodeofCivilProceduresection580bprohibitsthelenderfromobtainingadeciencyjudgmentaerthesale.emortgagelenderdemurredtothecomplaintandthesuperiorcourtsustainedthedemurrerwithoutleavetoamendndingsection580bappliesonlyaeraforeclosure.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.Oneheldthatsection580bappliesaerasaleofpropertyandthereisnorequirementinthestatutethataforeclosuremustoccurtotriggeritsprotections.ereforetheCourtofAppealheldthatsection580bappliedtotheshortsalethatthemortgagelenderapproved.eSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober30toaddressthefollowingissues1Dotheanti-deciencyprotectionsinCodeofCivilProceduresection580bapplytoaborrowerwhoengagesinashortsaleofrealpropertywhenthelenderapprovedthesaleandreconveyeditsdeedoftrusttofacilitatethesaleontheconditionthattheborrowerremainliableforanyoutstandingbalanceontheloanfollowingthesale2DoesaborrowersrequestthatthecreditorreleaseitssecurityinterestinrealpropertytofacilitateashortsaleresultinawaiveroftheprotectionofthesecurityrstrulesetforthinCodeofCivilProceduresection726Addressingachallengetoacityordinanceplacingconditionsonbuildingpermitsrelatingtounitsforlowincomehousing.CaliforniaBuildingIndustryAssociationv.CityofSanJosecaseno.S212072formerlypublishedat216Cal.App.4th1373.eCaliforniaBuildingIndustryAssociationCBIAledafacialchallengetoaCityofSanJoseordinancethatrequiresdevelopersofresidentialhousingprojectstoeitherincludeinclusionaryunitsforlow-incomeindividualsorpursueoneoffourenumeratedalternativessuchasdedicatinglandfortheunitsorpayinganin-lieufee.ApplyingSanRemoHotelL.P.v.CityandCountyofSanFrancisco200227Cal.4th643670thetrialcourtdeclaredtheordinanceinvalidbecausethecityhadnotshownthattheordinancewasreasonablyrelatedtoanyimpactscausedbynewresidentialdevelopmentanditgrantedCBIAsrequestforinjunctiverelief.eCourtofAppealSixthDist.reversedandremandedndingSanRemoHotelinapplicabletotheordinanceonthegroundthattheordinanceneededonlytoberationallyrelatedtotheCityspolicepower.eSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonSeptember112013toaddressthefollowingissueWhatstandardofjudicialreviewappliestoafacialconstitutionalchallengetoinclusionaryhousingordinancesthatrequiresetasidesorin-lieufeesasaconditionofapprovingadevelopmentpermitVoume32013erictgreenseetsviiAddressingovertimewagerulesforprivatesecurtyguars.Mendiolav.CPSSecuritySolutionscaseno.S212704formerlypublishedat217Cal.App.4th851.InthesewageandhourclassactionsbroughtagainstdefendantswhoemployedsecurityguardsforbuildingconstructionsitestheourtofAppealheldthatguardsareentitledtocompensationfornighttimeoncallhourswhentheshiworkedconsistsofeighthoursonpatrolandeighthourson-callatthepremises.Howevertheemployerispermittedtodeducteighthoursofsleeptimeforguardsworking24-hourshis.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober162013todecidethefollowingissueAretheguardsthatdefendantsprovideforconstructionsitesecurityentitledtocompensationforallnighttimeoncallhoursormaydefendantsdeductsleeptimedependingonthestructureoftheguardsworkshisAddressingcompetenceofexperttestimonyorebutVehicleoderesumtionofalcoholbloodlevelsandcometenceofcontrarcircumstancialevidencetosustainndingconsistentwithfactastowhichstatutorresumtonaeenreutte.Coffeyv.Shiomotocaseno.S213545formerlypublishedat218Cal.App.4th1288.Plaintiwasarrestedfordrivinundertheinuence.Anhouraershewaspulledovershetookabreathalyzertest.etestresultwas0.08percentblood-alcoholcontentBAC.Afewminuteslatershetookanothertestresultinina0.09percentBAC.Twenty-veminuteslatershetookabloodtestresultinin0.095percentBAC.eDepartmentofMotorVehiclesDMVsuspendedherlicenseaerconductinanAdministrativePerSeAPShearin.etrialcourtdeniedapetitionforawritofmandatechallenintheDMVrulin.OnappealplainticontendstheuncontradictedexperttestimonyattheAPShearindemonstratedherBACwasrisinthrouhoutthethreetestsandthusbelow0.08percentatthetimeshewasdrivin.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.reeheld1anexpertstestimonythatthemotoristsBACwasrisingasindicatedbysubsequentvalidchemicaltestswassucienttorebutthethreehourpresumptionofVehicleCodesection213152subdivisionbhowever2non-chemicaltestcircumstantialevidenceinthepresenceofavalidBACchemicaltestconstitutedsubstantialevidencesucienttosustainandingthatthemotoristsBACwasatleast0.08percentatthetimeofdriving.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober302012toaddressthefollowingquestions1Cancircumstantialevidenceotherthantheresultsofchemicaltestsbeusedtoprovethatadriversblood-alcoholcontentatthetimeofdrivingwasthesameasorgreaterthantheresultsofablood-alcoholtesttakenapproximatelyanhouraerdriving2IsthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealconsistentwiththerequirementsofEvidenceCodesection604forproofofaninitiallypresumedfactaerthepresumptionhasbeenrebuttedAddressingscopeoborrowerprotectionsunderanti-deciencylawsandthesecurityrstrule.Cokerv.JPMorganChaseBankN.A.caseno.S213137formerlypublishedat218Cal.App.4th1.Aborrowerwasunabletomakehermortaepaymentsandareedtosellherhousetoathirdpartytoavoidforeclosure.Howeverthesalepricewaslessthantheamounttheborrowerowedonherloan.emortgagelenderagreedtotheshortsalebutasaconditionofapprovalstatedthattheborrowerwouldberesponsibleforanydeciency.eborrowerledacomplaintfordeclaratoryreliefseekingajudicialdeterminationthatCodeofCivilProceduresection580bprohibitsthelenderfromobtainingadeciencyjudgmentaerthesale.emortgagelenderdemurredtothecomplaintandthesuperiorcourtsustainedthedemurrerwithoutleavetoamendndingsection580bappliesonlyaeraforeclosure.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.Oneheldthatsection580bappliesaerasaleofpropertyandthereisnorequirementinthestatutethataforeclosuremustoccurtotrieritsprotections.ereforetheCourtofAppealheldthatsection580bappliedtotheshortsalethatthemortaelenderapproved.eSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober30toaddressthefollowingissues1Dotheanti-deciencyprotectionsinCodeofCivilProceduresection580bapplytoaborrowerwhoengagesinashortsaleofrealpropertywhenthelenderapprovedthesaleandreconveyeditsdeedoftrusttofacilitatethesaleontheconditionthattheborrowerremainliableforanyoutstandingbalanceontheloanfollowingthesale2DoesaborrowersrequestthatthecreditorreleaseitssecurityinterestinrealpropertytofacilitateashortsaleresultinawaiveroftheprotectionofthesecurityrstrulesetforthinCodeofCivilProceduresection726Addressingachallengetoacityordinanceplacingconditionsonbuildingpermitsrelatingounitsforlowincomehousing.CaliforniaBuildingIndustryAssociationv.CityofSanJosecaseno.S212072formerlypublishedat216Cal.App.4th1373.eCaliforniaBuildinIndustryAssociationCBIAledafacialchallenetoaCityofSanJoseordinancethatrequiresdevelopersofresidentialhousinprojectstoeitherincludeinclusionaryunitsforlow-incomeindividualsorpursueoneoffourenumeratedalternativessuchasdedicatinlandfortheunitsorpayinanin-lieufee.ApplyinSanRemoHotelL.P.v.CityandCountyofSanFrancisco200227Cal.4th643670thetrialcourtdeclaredtheordinanceinvalidbecausethecityhadnotshownthattheordinancewasreasonablyrelatedtoanyimpactscausedbynewresidentialdevelopmentanditrantedCBIAsrequestforinjunctiverelief.eCourtofAppealSixthDist.reversedandremandedndinSanRemoHotelinapplicabletotheordinanceontheroundthattheordinanceneededonlytoberationallyrelatedtotheCityspolicepower.eSupremeCourtrantedreviewonSeptember112013toaddressthefollowinissueWhatstandardofjudicialreviewappliestoafacialconstitutionalchallenetoinclusionaryhousinordinancesthatrequiresetasidesorin-lieufeesasaconditionofapprovinadevelopmentpermit