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
viiiverdictgreensheetsVolume32013Addressingproprietyofcitysapprovalofadevelopmentplaninlightofanallegedlyinconsistentgeneralplan.OrangeCitizensforParksandRecreationv.SuperiorCourtMilanReiIVcaseno.S212800formerlypublishedat217Cal.App.4th1005.PlaintisagroupofCityofOrangecitizenschallengedathecitycouncilsapprovalofadevelopmentprojectthatplaintisarguedwasinconsistentwiththecitysgeneralplananamendmenttothegeneralplanthatwouldhaveallowedtheprojecthadbeenvoteddownbyreferendum.etrialcourthoweverruledthattheCitysgeneralplanwasnotinconsistentwiththedevelopmentsothegeneralplanamendmentwasunnecessary.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.reearmedholdingthattheCitycouldreasonablyndthedevelopmentwasconsistentwiththecitysgeneralplan.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober302013toaddressthefollowingquestionIstheproposeddevelopmentprojectoflowdensityhousingatissueinthiscaseconsistentwiththecitysgeneralplanAddressingagovernmententitysliabilityforanallegeddangerousconditionofpublicpropertyandtheentitysafrmativedefenseofdesignimmunity.Hamptonv.CountyofSanDiegocaseno.S213132formerlypublishedat218Cal.App.4th286.Whiledrivinghisvehicletheplainticollidedwithanothervehicleatanintersection.HeandhiswifesuedthedriveroftheothervehicleandalsosuedtheCountyofSanDiegoallegingadangerousconditionofpublicproperty.eCountyassertedthattheclaimswerebarredbythearmativedefenseofdesignimmunityandsuccessfullymovedforsummaryjudgment.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.OnearmedholdingthattheCountyestablishedthearmativedefenseofdesignimmunityasamatteroflawandthattheaccumulationoffoliageonanembankmentwhichallegedlylimitedsightdistancewasnotevidenceofadangerouscondition.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober232013toaddressthefollowingissueDoesapublicentityestablishthesecondelementofdesignimmunityunderGovernmentCodesection830.6discretionaryapprovalofdesignplansasamatteroflawbypresentingevidencethatitsdesignplanswereapprovedbyanemployeewiththediscretiontodosoeveniftheplaintipresentsevidencethatthedesignatissueviolatedthepublicentitysownstandardsAddressingscopeofgovernmententitysliabilityforallegeddangerousconditionofpropertywhereharmtoplaintiffwascausedbyactsofathirdpartythatwerenotinturncausedbytheconditionoftheproperty.Curtisv.CountyofLosAngelescaseno.S213275formerlypublishedat218Cal.App.4th366.AmotoristsuedtheCountyofLosAngelesforinjuriessustainedinavehiclecollisioncausedbyanotherdriverallegingthatthelackofacentermedianspaceorbarrieronthehighwayconstitutedadangerouscondition.eCourtofAppealSecondDist.Div.Fourheld1thelackofamedianspaceorbarrierwasnottheproximatecauseofthecollisionand2theCountywasimmunefromliabilityfornotincludingamedianspaceorbarrierinthedesignofthehighway.eSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober232013butorderedfurtheractiondeferredpendingdispositionofarelatedquestioninCordovav.CityofLosAngelescaseno.S208130whichpresentsthefollowingissueMayagovernmententitybeheldliableifadangerousconditionofpublicpropertyexistedandcausedtheinjuriesplaintissueredinanaccidentbutdidnotcausethethirdpartyconductthatledtotheaccidentAddressingjurisdictionoverforeignparentcompaniesbasedonactivitiesofsubsidiarieswithcontactsinCalifornia.DaimlerAGv.SuperiorCourtofSacramentoCountyPiersoncaseno.S210847followingsummarydenialofawritpetition.iscaseraisesaquestionaboutjurisdictionoverdefendantandpetitionerDaimlerAGaGermancorporation.DaimlerAGhasanindirectU.S.subsidiaryMercedes-BenzUSAMBUSAwhichisdomiciledinNewJersey.MBUSAperformedservicesforDaimlerAGinCaliforniapursuanttoaDistributorAgreementbetweenthecompanies.DaimlerAGledamotiontoquashserviceofsummonsforlackofpersonaljurisdictiononthegroundthatithadnosignicantcontactswithCalifornia.eSacramentoSuperiorCourtdeniedthemotionimputingMBUSAscontactstoDaimlerAGonatheoryofagencytherepresentativeservicesdoctrine.eCourtofAppealirdDist.summarilydeniedDaimlerAGspetitionforaperemptorywritofmandate.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonJuly312013butpendingdecisionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinDaimlerChryslerAGv.BaumanNo.11-965cert.grantedApr.222013__U.S.__133S.Ct.1995185L.Ed.2d865whichpresentsissuesconcerningastatecourtsexerciseofpersonaljurisdictionoveraforeigncorporationbasedonservicesperformedintheforumstatebyawholly-ownedsubsidiaryonbehalfoftheforeigncorporation.iiierictgreenseetsVoume32013Addressingproprietyocitysapprovaloaevelopmentplaninlightofanallegedlyinconsistentgeneralplan.OrangeCitizensforParksandRecreationv.SuperiorCourtMilanReiIVcaseno.S212800formerlypublishedat217Cal.App.4th1005.PlaintisagroupofCityofOrangecitizenschallengedathecitycouncilsapprovalofadevelopmentprojectthatplaintisarguedwasinconsistentwiththecitysgeneralplananamendmenttothegeneralplanthatwouldhaveallowedtheprojecthadbeenvoteddownbyreferendum.etrialcourthoweverruledthattheCitysgeneralplanwasnotinconsistentwiththedevelopmentsothegeneralplanamendmentwasunnecessary.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.reearmedholdingthattheCitycouldreasonablyndthedevelopmentwasconsistentwiththecitysgeneralplan.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober302013toaddressthefollowinquestionIstheproposeddevelopmentprojectoflowdensityhousinatissueinthiscaseconsistentwiththecityseneralplanAddressingagovernmententitysliabilityoranallegeddangerousconditionopublicpropertyandtheentitysafrmativedefenseodesignimmunity.Hamptonv.CountyofSanDiegocaseno.S213132formerlypublishedat218Cal.App.4th286.Whiledrivinghisvehicletheplainticollidedwithanothervehicleatanintersection.HeandhiswifesuedthedriveroftheothervehicleandalsosuedtheCountyofSanDiegoallegingadangerousconditionofpublicproperty.eCountyassertedthattheclaimswerebarredbythearmativedefenseofdesignimmunityandsuccessfullymovedforsummaryjudgment.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.OnearmedholdingthattheCountyestablishedthearmativedefenseofdesignimmunityasamatteroflawandthattheaccumulationoffoliageonanembankmentwhichallegedlylimitedsightdistancewasnotevidenceofadangerouscondition.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtrantedreviewonOctober232013toaddressthefollowinissueDoesapublicentityestablishthesecondelementofdesinimmunityunderGovernmentCodesection830.6discretionaryapprovalofdesinplansasamatteroflawbypresentinevidencethatitsdesinplanswereapprovedbyanemployeewiththediscretiontodosoeveniftheplaintipresentsevidencethatthedesinatissueviolatedthepublicentitysownstandardsAddressingscopeogovernmententitysliabilityforallegeddangerousconditionofpropertywhereharmtoplaintiffwascausedbyactsofathirdpartythatwerenotinturncausedbytheconditionoftheproperty.Curtisv.CountyofLosAngelescaseno.S213275formerlypublishedat218Cal.App.4th366.AmotoristsuedtheCountyofLosAngelesforinjuriessustainedinavehiclecollisioncausedbyanotherdriverallegingthatthelackofacentermedianspaceorbarrieronthehighwayconstitutedadangerouscondition.eCourtofAppealSecondDist.Div.Fourheld1thelackofamedianspaceorbarrierwasnottheproximatecauseofthecollisionand2theCountywasimmunefromliabilityfornotincludingamedianspaceorbarrierinthedesignofthehighway.eSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober232013butorderedfurtheractiondeferredpendingdispositionofarelatedquestioninCordovav.CityofLosAngelescaseno.S208130whichpresentsthefollowinissueMayaovernmententitybeheldliableifadanerousconditionofpublicpropertyexistedandcausedtheinjuriesplaintissueredinanaccidentbutdidnotcausethethirdpartyconductthatledtotheaccidentAddressingurisdictionoveroreignparentcomaniesbasedonactivitiesosubsidiarieswihninlirni.DaimlerAGv.SuperiorCourtofSacramentoCountyPiersoncaseno.210847followingsummarydenialofawritpetition.iscaseraisesaquestionaboutjurisdictionoverdefendantandpetitionerDaimlerAGaGermancorporation.DaimlerAGhasanindirectU.S.subsidiaryMercedes-BenzUSAMBUSAwhichisdomiciledinNewJersey.MBUSAperformedservicesforDaimlerAGinCaliforniapursuanttoaDistributorAgreementbetweenthecompanies.DaimlerAGledamotiontoquashserviceofsummonsforlackofpersonaljurisdictiononthegroundthatithadnosignicantcontactswithCalifornia.eSacramentoSuperiorCourtdeniedthemotionimputingMBUSAscontactstoDaimlerAGonatheoryofaencytherepresentativeservicesdoctrine.eCourtofAppealirdDist.summarilydeniedDaimlerAGspetitionforaperemptorywritofmandate.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtrantedreviewonJuly312013butpendindecisionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinDaimlerChryslerAGv.BaumanNo.11-965cert.rantedApr.222013__U.S.__133S.Ct.1995185L.Ed.2d865whichpresentsissuesconcerninastatecourtsexerciseofpersonaljurisdictionoveraforeincorporationbasedonservicesperformedintheforumstatebyawholly-ownedsubsidiaryonbehalfoftheforeincorporation.