California Legal Brief

The Rule of Bagby v. Davis is that California law applies to collection actions in California courts regardless of where the judgment debtor lives, and that a voluntarily surrendered life insurance policy is treated as matured (not exempt) unless the proceeds are necessary for the debtor's support, under circumstances where the debtor seeks exemption from levy on accounts funded by surrendered insurance policy proceeds.

The Rule of Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach is that forum selection clauses in motorhome warranties are unenforceable as unconscionable when they are part of warranty agreements containing other illegal provisions that violate California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, even when the manufacturer offers to stipulate not to enforce the illegal provisions in the out-of-state forum.

The Rule of *People v. Alston* is that under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, a trial court must expressly explain its reasons on the record when ruling on an objection to a peremptory challenge, including making findings on whether presumptively invalid reasons were rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, under circumstances where the prosecutor's stated reasons for the challenge include distrust of law enforcement by a prospective juror who is a member of a cognizable group.

The Rule of People v. Dixon is that grand jury proceeding transcripts and police reports containing witness statements are inadmissible at Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearings, under circumstances where the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and the documents constitute multiple levels of hearsay without applicable exceptions.

The Rule of People v. Flores is that an electronics search condition for probation is constitutional and reasonable when the defendant used electronic devices as integral tools in the commission of the underlying offense, under circumstances where the defendant used internet-based platforms and VOIP technology to facilitate drug sales and conceal their identity.

The Rule of The People v. Zapata is that when a suspect invokes and does not waive the right to counsel, and a known law enforcement officer continues to "stimulate" a Perkins operation in a manner that amounts to a custodial interrogation, the suspect's resulting incriminating statements are inadmissible, under circumstances where the known officer's actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response and created a police-dominated atmosphere of compulsion.

The Rule of In re Reyna R. is that a juvenile court errs in ordering a parent to pay for professional visitation monitoring without first considering the parent's ability to pay or reasonable alternatives when the parent raises a timely objection based on financial inability, under circumstances where the parent objects to professional monitoring costs at the exit order hearing.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Danielle and Lewis Allen is that parents are precluded from contractually waiving or forgiving past due child support arrearages even after the child has reached the age of majority and there is no longer a current support order in place, under circumstances where the obligor seeks to enforce an accord and satisfaction agreement for less than the full arrearage amount.

The Rule of Semaan v. Mosier is that a court-appointed receiver is protected by quasi-judicial immunity for the receiver's discretionary acts and decisions made in their capacity as receiver, under circumstances where the receiver must exercise discretionary judgment in fulfilling court orders.

The Rule of Findlay Grant et al. v. Chapman University is that a university's statements about class locations, campus facilities, and "face-to-face contact" requirements do not constitute sufficiently "specific" promises to create an enforceable implied contract for in-person education, under circumstances where the statements are general expectations rather than binding commitments and facilities descriptions contain express disclaimers.

The Rule of Esparza v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County is that incompetence to testify under Evidence Code section 701 may not be presumed from a prior grave disability finding under the LPS Act, under circumstances where a conservatorship has been established based on inability to provide for basic personal needs.

The Rule of Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc. is that collecting and using license plate information through an automated system without implementing and making publicly available the statutorily required usage and privacy policy constitutes "harm" under the ALPR Law sufficient to state a cause of action, under circumstances where an entity operates cameras and computer algorithms to automatically read and convert license plate images into computer-readable data.

The Rule of Conservatorship of A.B. is that a person may be found presently gravely disabled if clear and convincing evidence shows they lack insight into their mental illness and will not take medication necessary to provide for basic needs without a court order, under circumstances where the evidence demonstrates a longstanding pattern of decompensating when not under mandatory medication orders despite repeated cycles of hospitalization.

The Rule of Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. is that a contract's format and illegibility generally do not support substantive unconscionability, but courts must closely scrutinize difficult-to-read contracts for unfair or one-sided terms when high procedural unconscionability exists, under circumstances where an employment arbitration agreement is presented in nearly illegible tiny print with minimal time for review.

The Rule of Committee for Tiburon LLC v. Town of Tiburon is that a program EIR for a local agency's general plan need not include site-specific environmental analysis of sites identified in the housing element where no housing project has been proposed for the site, under circumstances where the absence of project-specific details precludes informed review of environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

The Rule of Navellier v. Putnam is that parties to an appeal must promptly notify the appellate court of any bankruptcy filing that "could cause or impose a stay" of proceedings, even if they believe the stay does not apply, under Local Rule 21's mandatory disclosure requirements.

The Rule of People v. Heaps is that ex parte communications with a deliberating jury concerning a juror's ability to deliberate require reversal unless the prosecution proves harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, under circumstances where the trial court fails to notify counsel of the jury's note raising competency concerns and the record does not establish how the jury resolved those concerns.

The Rule of Brown v. Department of Motor Vehicles is that the Department of Motor Vehicles is not required to disclose the identity of a third-party reporter who initiates a driver reexamination proceeding, under circumstances where the reporter's form merely initiates the process but is not relied upon for the ultimate license suspension decision, the driver receives notice and hearing opportunities, and disclosure of the reporter's identity would compromise road safety by deterring future reports.

The Rule of **People v. Diaz** is that trial courts are not required to expressly state they have considered a defendant's youth when determining whether the defendant acted with express malice/intent to kill in section 1172.6 proceedings, under circumstances where the court is aware of the defendant's age and counsel argues youth as a mitigating factor but the court finds the defendant personally intended the victims' deaths.

The Rule of People v. Gomez is that use of animal imagery in criminal proceedings does not violate the Racial Justice Act when the animal reference is benign, endearing, and used solely to explain legal concepts rather than to dehumanize or exhibit racial bias, under circumstances where an objective observer would understand the comparison relates to the state of evidence rather than character traits.