California Legal Brief

The Rule of Detrick v. Shimada is that a non-English speaking witness's declaration is inadmissible without foundational evidence of a qualified interpreter and attestation that the translation accurately reflects the witness's words, under circumstances where the witness cannot read, write, or speak English and provides no evidence of interpreter qualifications or translation accuracy.

The Rule of Nishida v. Kamoda is that a civil fraud action alleging misrepresentations during family law property settlement negotiations may be transferred to family law court rather than dismissed for jurisdictional reasons, and the action remains timely under Family Code section 2122 if filed within one year of discovering the fraud, under circumstances where the plaintiff files in civil court but the case is properly transferred to family law court.

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a criminal defendant charged with specific intent crimes may present a mistake of law defense based on good faith reliance on legal advice about the necessity defense, even when the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where the defendant obtained legal opinions from qualified professionals regarding the lawfulness of his conduct and relied on those opinions in good faith.

The Rule of Vela v. Harbor Rail Services is that a railcar repairman who repairs decommissioned freight cars withdrawn from service at a railroad yard is not a "railroad employee" or "transportation worker" exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, under circumstances where the worker is employed by an independent contractor company, has no direct employment relationship with the railroad, and performs repair work on rail cars that are temporarily out of service and not actively engaged in transporting goods.

The Rule of *People v. Parker B.* is that when a juvenile court dismisses a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 782 after adjudication without qualification, the dismissal encompasses both the petition and all findings made on the offenses alleged therein, thereby satisfying section 786(d)'s requirement that "the finding on that offense was dismissed" for purposes of sealing records involving Penal Code section 707(b) offenses committed at age 14 or older, under circumstances where the juvenile has satisfactorily completed probation and the court has not expressly limited the scope of its dismissal.

The Rule of People v. Pineda is that at section 1172.6 resentencing evidentiary hearings, previously admitted hearsay testimony from preliminary hearings is admissible if it meets a current hearsay exception, including the declaration against interest exception when the statements subjected the declarant to risk of criminal liability.

The Rule of People v. Tourville is that a trial court abuses its discretion in denying mental health diversion based on general public safety concerns beyond the statutory definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" (risk of committing a super strike), and cannot require a defendant to plead guilty to obtain the same treatment program that would be available under diversion, under circumstances where the court finds the defendant eligible and suitable for diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36.

The Rule of Robert Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. is that a nonsignatory employer cannot compel arbitration under a temporary employment agency's arbitration agreement when the employee's claims arise exclusively from direct employment with the nonsignatory employer that occurred after the agency employment ended, under circumstances where the arbitration agreement defines "Company" to include only the agency and its affiliates, subsidiaries and parent companies, and the claims do not arise out of or relate to employment with the temporary agency.

The Rule of Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association v. Leopoldo Valdivia is that a public entity's adoption and recording of CC&Rs containing a prohibition on abortion clinics violates the California Constitution and is unenforceable as against fundamental public policy, under circumstances where the public entity's creation of the prohibition constitutes government action that interferes with the fundamental right of procreative choice without a compelling justification.

The Rule of In re O.M. et al. is that uncontradicted evidence of parental inability to acknowledge or address a child's malnutrition compels dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), under circumstances where the parent lacks insight into nutritional deficiencies despite hospitalization for malnutrition and cannot articulate a specific plan to prevent recurrence.

The Rule of The People v. Robinson is that Penal Code section 1172.75, subdivision (f) must be construed conjunctively to exclude from resentencing only those individuals who have been convicted of a qualifying sexually violent offense AND sentenced to death or life without parole, under circumstances where Senate Bill No.

The Rule of Gibbs v. County of Humboldt is that a public entity has mandatory statutory duties enforceable under Government Code section 815.6 to (1) maintain employee personnel records and allow inspection under Government Code section 31011 and Labor Code section 1198.5, and (2) timely enroll eligible employees in CalPERS under Government Code section 20283, under circumstances where the entity is a contracting agency with CalPERS and has failed to discharge these duties causing injury to the employee's retirement benefits.

The Rule of People v. Superior Court (Feghhi) is that an officer's failure to inform a magistrate in a search warrant application that a DUI defendant requested a breath test does not undermine the validity of the warrant authorizing seizure of a blood sample, under circumstances where the warrant was otherwise supported by probable cause based on objective signs of intoxication and the defendant's involvement in a fatal DUI crash.

The Rule of Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles is that a municipal ordinance creating a monetary threshold that must be satisfied before a cause of action for unlawful detainer accrues is a permissible substantive regulation of the grounds for eviction rather than an impermissible procedural limitation on the unlawful detainer statutes, under circumstances where the ordinance does not extend the unlawful detainer timeline, does not prohibit landlords from proceeding under the state statutory timeline, and does not require landlords to take affirmative action before commencing unlawful detainer proceedings.

The Rule of Colonial Manor, Inc. v. Vilma Reyes is that a landlord cannot enforce an unlawful detainer for rent that exceeds local rent control ceilings, even against a surviving spouse who becomes an implied tenant after the original tenant's death, under circumstances where the spouse was a long-term lawful occupant known to the landlord and Costa-Hawkins does not preempt local rent control protections for implied tenancies.

The Rule of Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development is that a city does not abuse its discretion in approving a mixed-use housing project without requiring a master plan when the general plan uses discretionary language ("encourage") regarding joint redevelopment and the project furthers the plan's substantive objectives for improved circulation, access, and residential uses, under circumstances where the general plan policy contains undefined terms, aspirational goals, and acknowledges practical difficulties with joint redevelopment.

The Rule of People v. Tyus is that at a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a petitioner is guilty of murder under current law—it is not the petitioner's burden to prove an alternate murder theory existed, under circumstances where the petitioner has established a prima facie case for relief and was not the actual killer.

The Rule of People v. Bankers Insurance Company is that a trial court retains jurisdiction over a bail bond when defense counsel indicates there is a reason for defendant's nonappearance, conveys that reason to the court during an off-the-record discussion, and the court states on the record that based on the information given, it will not forfeit the bond, under circumstances where the court has reason to believe sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appear per section 1305.1.

The Rule of Daniel Husband v. Target Corporation is that an employer cannot be charged with knowledge of an employee's undisclosed mental disability based solely on two incidents of erratic and irrational behavior, under circumstances where the behavior admits of multiple reasonable interpretations other than mental disability.

The Rule of Beale v. Department of Motor Vehicles is that the DMV cannot suspend a driver's license for refusing to take a blood alcohol test while riding an electric bicycle, under circumstances where the rider was operating an electric bicycle (not a motor vehicle) and arrested under Vehicle Code sections that do not apply to bicyclists.