Articles Posted in New Case Law

ROBERT MANN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2024, No. B328374) 2024 WL 4834847, review denied (Nov. 20, 2024)

Summary: The State of California and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) appeal from a judgment requiring it to revise its vehicle impound procedures. CHP contends the injunction improperly requires it to contravene valid statutes, relies on inapplicable case law, conflicts with the existing statutory scheme, and mandates unnecessary revisions to its notice procedures. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed.

Background

Mendoza v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App., June 15, 2024, No. A170135) 2024 WL 3408756, at *1–2

Summary: Mendoza appealed an order denying a motion to dismiss misdemeanor charges against her for violation of the speedy trial statute, Penal Code section 1382. The superior court denied her motion based on the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic which constituted exceptional and extraordinary circumstances warranting a finding of good cause for the delay.

The issue of whether there was good cause for the delay was not properly before the Court of Appeal. The People conceded there was no good cause. Because there was no competent evidence to support the court’s order the Court of Appeal directed the superior court to grant the motion to dismiss.

DAVID AUDISH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVID MACIAS et al., Defendants and Respondents. (Cal. Ct. App., May 21, 2024, No. D081689) 2024 WL 2860272

Summary: Plaintiff Audish appealed a civil judgment after a jury verdict in an automobile collision case. The jury found Audish and defendant David  both operated their vehicles negligently and each party’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Audish. The jury found Audish suffered $65,699.50 in damages, including $29,288.94 for past medical expenses, $3,620 for past non-economic losses, and $32,790.56 for future medical expenses, and it assigned each party 50 percent of the responsibility for these losses.

On appeal, Audish contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence that he would have Medicare medical insurance at the age of 65. He also argues the jury returned an impermissible compromise verdict and erred by failing to award him damages for future non-economic losses. The Court of Appeal rejected these claims and affirmed the judgment.

People v. Serrano (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2024, No. A166011) 2024 WL 1320422, at *6–9

Exercise of Discretion Under Section 1385(c)

Serrano argued  that the trial court erred by failing to exercise its discretion under section 1385(c) to consider striking the jury’s premeditation and deliberation findings.