Decisions in Criminal, Juvenile, Labor, Government & Civil Procedure Matters

By FindLaw Staff on December 23, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Talley v. Valuation Counselors Group, Inc., D055894, concerned a challenge to the trial court's orders vacating certain judgments of dismissal, in plaintiff's suit claiming fraud and related theories against various defendants for their roles in alleged securities fraud activities in the 1990's that allegedly ruined plaintiff's career by drawing him into the schemes in the role of a salesman of worthless bonds to private clients.

The court reversed the trial court's order granting plaintiff's motion to set aside judgments and orders of dismissal and to file a second amended complaint, as because the dismissal orders were not void on their face, this was not a proper method of collateral attack on them, nor an appropriate exercise of trial court's equitable powers.  The court also held that trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion as to the change in the factual predicate for the dismissals that occurred in October 2008, when the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion restricting the proper scope of the Bar orders, did not undermine or void the otherwise proper dismissals, and this change does not justify the current orders granting plaintiff relief from the judgments.  Lastly, the court held that plaintiff's arguments in his cross-appeal must fail as he cannot show that the trial court erroneously failed to grant his motion as to the Clarey defendants, who were previously dismissed at both the trial and appellate levels.

People v. Nesbitt, B218373, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for sexual abuse of three of his children.  In affirming, the court held that, because the trial court had inherent authority to reconsider its order dismissing counts 4 and 5, both of which alleged the commission of a forcible lewd act on a child in violation of section 288(b), the trial court's order vacating the dismissal of those counts and reinstating them was proper.

In re V.M., B220976, concerned a challenge to a trial court's exercise of dependency jurisdiction over a minor, in finding that the minor's father had "abdicated his role of father for his daughter all her life," which resulted in the child being suitably placed with her grandparents.  In reversing the decision, the court remanded the matter in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion as the dependency court cannot assert jurisdiction where there is no evidence of parental abuse of neglect.

In re Sean A., D056026, concerned a challenge to a juvenile court's judgment declaring defendant a ward of the court and placing him in probation after defendant admitted to possessing a controlled substance for sale.  In affirming, the court held that the search of his person by a public high school official was lawful, and defendant has waived any objection to his probation conditions by failing to object in the juvenile court.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, B223184, concerned a challenge to the defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking relief from the trial court's denial of its demurrer to plaintiffs' first amended complaint, which contains a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), in plaintiffs' suit against the defendant for alleged failure to provide seating to its employees pursuant to section 1198 and Wage Order 7-2001.  In denying the petition, the court held that the first amended complaint alleges that defendant has not provided seating for its employees, even though there is ample space behind each counter/cashier to sallow for a stool or seat, and the seating requirement of Wage Order 7-2100 clearly prohibits such conduct. The court also held that, the default remedy penalties, viewed as supplements to the section 20(A) of the wage order penalties, are not excessive or improper.

City of Arcadia v. State Water Res. Control Bd., G041545, concerned a challenge to a trial court's judgment issuing a writ of mandate that vacated a resolution by defendant California Regional Water Quality Control Board after it completed a periodic review of its water quality control plan and related judgments.

In reversing the judgment, the court held that, insofar as plaintiffs' action is limited to their challenge to the Board's resolution on the 2004 Triennial Review without addressing their requests concerning the validity of the water quality objective as well as the imposition of total maximum daily load (TMDL) under the current MS4 permit, it would appear to be timely.  The court also held that the trial court erred in failing to give collateral estoppel effect to the first and second appellate court decisions concerning the application of section 13241 to the 2001 MS4 permit and the adoption of the trash TMDL.  Further, absent a showing that defendants sought to impose water quality objectives exceeding what federal law required, plaintiffs cannot prevail.  Lastly the court held that the trial court erred in limiting the Board's exercise of its discretion in developing water quality objectives, and denied the pending motions by intervenors and amici curiae.

Related Links:




Copied to clipboard