California Legal Brief

The Rule of Sgaraglino v. County of Ventura is that Welfare and Institutions Code section 5113 immunizes psychiatric facilities from civil liability for any action by a patient released after involuntary detention, even when the release decision allegedly constitutes gross negligence, under circumstances where the patient was involuntarily detained under section 5150 and released at or before the end of the authorized detention period.

The Rule of In re the Marriage of McConnell and Jahnke is that a divorcing party who agrees to assume a joint mortgage in a property settlement cannot be forced to remove the other spouse from the mortgage absent an explicit term requiring it, under circumstances where a settlement agreement awards one spouse the marital home "and all debts thereon" without specifying removal obligations.

The Rule of In re A.T. et al. is that juvenile courts may not assert jurisdiction under section 300(e) over a child who is over five years old at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, under circumstances where the child suffered severe physical abuse before turning five but had reached age five or older by the time of the hearing.

The Rule of People v. Demolle is that a suspect's consent to provide a blood sample is not the product of an unlawful detention where the encounter remains consensual, under circumstances where a reasonable person would feel free to leave or terminate the encounter despite being taken to a police station and briefly held in locked interview rooms.

The Rule of People v. Chhuon and Pan is that defense counsel cannot concede a defendant's guilt to any crime over the defendant's express objection to maintain innocence, even as part of an alternative argument strategy, under circumstances where the defendant expressly instructs counsel not to admit guilt and counsel nevertheless argues the defendant is guilty of lesser charges to avoid the death penalty.

The Rule of People v. Barrera is that evidence of prolonged physical abuse, deliberate starvation, isolation, and refusal to seek medical care can support convictions for first degree murder by torture and premeditated/deliberate murder of children, under circumstances involving systematic abuse causing multiple injuries over time combined with fatal acts against severely weakened victims.

The Rule of People v. Bankston is that penalty phase proceedings in capital cases that are marked by errors under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)) require reversal of the death judgment, under circumstances where both prosecution and defense agree such errors occurred.

The Rule of **Cortina v. North American Title Company** is that a trial court's authority to delegate matters to a referee without the parties' consent is strictly circumscribed by the California Constitution and Code of Civil Procedure, and a nonconsensual reference of substantial scope and magnitude is entirely unauthorized and requires reversal, under circumstances where wage and hour class action proceedings are referred to a referee over defendant's strenuous objections without meeting the constitutional and statutory requirements for nonconsensual reference.

The Rule of J.O. v. Superior Court is that if a party timely objects to a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 motion and makes a prima facie showing that the motion's proponent is lodging bad faith blanket challenges against a judge, a court may look beyond the section 170.6 affidavit or oral statement and inquire into the legitimacy of the party's assertions of prejudice, under circumstances where bad faith blanket abuses of section 170.6 materially impair the judiciary's constitutional function to effectively administer justice.

The Rule of People v. Haddock and Frank is that defendants establish a prima facie showing under the Racial Justice Act when they present factual allegations that, if true, would demonstrate a substantial likelihood of a violation, without requiring proof of their truth or prejudice analysis, under circumstances where an attorney's presentation of racially charged material to the jury exceeds the narrow exception for relating relevant third-party statements.

The Rule of People v. Ramadhan is that statements made by a defendant to an undercover agent in a Perkins operation are admissible even after the defendant invokes the right to counsel, under circumstances where the known law enforcement officer does not participate in or stimulate the conversation after the defendant's invocation of Miranda rights.

The Rule of Guild Mortgage Company LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage LLC is that employees owe an actionable duty of loyalty to their employers and branch managers with management authority and discretionary responsibility owe fiduciary duties that can support aiding and abetting tort claims, under circumstances where employees conspire with competitors while still employed to recruit colleagues, divert customers, and convert business pipelines.

The Rule of Watson v. Professional Business Management Corporation is that a nonsignatory defendant cannot compel arbitration based solely on unverified boilerplate allegations in a complaint that it is a "successor, agent and/or alter ego" of a signatory party, under circumstances where the nonsignatory defendant denies the agency relationship and provides no factual evidence to establish its connection to the signatory.

The Rule of People v. Cardenas is that a trial court must allow a defendant who exercises his or her right to a jury trial under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(2) the opportunity to argue to the jury what findings it should make as to alleged aggravating circumstances, under circumstances where the defendant has asserted the right to jury trial on aggravating factors that could be used to impose an upper term sentence.

The Rule of The Chemical Toxin Working Group Inc. v. Best Naturals, Inc. is that Proposition 65 pre-suit notice requirements under California Code of Regulations, title 27, section 25903 are satisfied by substantial compliance rather than strict compliance, under circumstances where the notice serves the regulation's underlying purposes of allowing investigation, cure, and settlement of alleged violations.

The Rule of Greely v. Greely is that a judgment creditor cannot use the spousal exception under Code of Civil Procedure section 700.160(b)(2) to levy on deposit accounts held in the name of a bigamous spouse without a court order, because a bigamous marriage is void ab initio and the supporting spousal affidavit is therefore false, under circumstances where the marriage was bigamous at inception regardless of whether it has been formally annulled.

The Rule of People v. Mitchell is that defendants who agreed to upper term sentences as part of plea bargains may seek retroactive application of Penal Code section 1170(b)'s amended jury trial requirements to their nonfinal judgments, under circumstances where the defendant did not validly waive the later-created statutory rights at the time of the original plea.

The Rule of Nuanmanee v. Superior Court is that a defendant has not been "brought to trial" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1382 when the trial court holds hearings on motions in limine but cannot empanel a jury due to the court's administrative policy, under circumstances where the court has a standing practice of reserving certain days for non-jury matters that prevents jury empanelment on the statutory deadline.

The Rule of In re K.L. is that DCFS satisfies its ICWA initial inquiry duty when it contacts parents and reasonably available extended family members, even if some extended family members remain unreachable despite good faith efforts, under circumstances where the agency attempted contact, obtained disconnected phone numbers, and family members declined to provide contact information without the missing person's consent.

The Rule of People v. Lopez-Tapia is that the lower term presumption under Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) requires evidence that childhood trauma was a contributing factor to the specific offense, not merely that trauma contributed to general gang involvement, under circumstances where a defendant claims childhood trauma should trigger mandatory lower term sentencing.