Decisions in Criminal, Tort, Labor & Government Law Matters
People v. Sharret, B223752, concerned a challenge to a defendant's conviction and sentence for possession for sale and sale of heroin. The court affirmed the conviction but modified the judgment as, an additional criminal laboratory analysis fee, penalty and surcharge should have been imposed as to conviction for sale of heroin. However, the court held that the criminal laboratory analysis fee imposed as to the count for possession for sale of heroin must be stayed under section 654 along with he charge of which defendant was convicted as it is punitive in nature.
Najera v. Huerta, F058850, concerned a challenge to the trial court's denial of plaintiff's request for expert fees and prejudgment interest, following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in finding that defendant was the sole negligent cause of an automobile accident and in awarding plaintiff total damages of $728,703.83. In affirming, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion to tax costs and thereby denying recovery of special costs pursuant to section 998, as although the section 998 offer was served concurrently with the summons and complaint, there were no special circumstances present to show that at that early juncture in the case, defendant's counsel had access to information or a reasonable opportunity to evaluate plaintiff's offer within the 30-day period.
Hendrix v. Superior Court, E050065, concerned plaintiff-court reporters' petition for writ of mandate, seeking to compel defendants, the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, to pay them at the higher rate specified in Government Code section 69950(a) any time plaintiffs had to recreate a previously transcribed reporter's transcript. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition is affirmed as, the higher rate of compensation applies only to the first transcription of the reporter's notes.
Flores v. Georgeson, F059173, concerned a challenge to the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit for failure to obtain prefiling approval of the litigation. In reversing, the court held that, a prefiling order, issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(a) does not require a vexatious litigant who is represented by counsel to obtain permission from the presiding judge to present litigation for filing.
Eriksson v. Nunnink, E049392, concerned plaintiff-parents' suit for wrongful death and infliction of emotion distress against defendant, their deceased daughter's horse riding coach, claiming that defendant increased the risk of harm reasonably assumed by their daughter when defendant allowed their daughter to ride a horse that was unfit to ride because of prior falls and lack of practice and concealed this condition from the plaintiffs.
In reversing the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court held that as to primary assumption of risk, defendant failed to set forth facts in her separate statement of undisputed facts negating the plaintiffs' allegation that defendant increased the risk of injury to their daughter by allowing her to ride a horse that was unfit to ride because of prior falls and lack of practice. The court also held that defendant failed to meet her burden of production as it relates to the element of breach of duty. Further, with respect to express contractual assumption of risk, defendant failed to meet her burden of proof of production that she was not grossly negligent. The court held that even if defendant met her initial burden, triable issues of fact exist as to duty, breach of duty, and gross negligence. Lastly, the court held that, with respect to causation, if defendant's undisputed statement of facts addressed the issue, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a triable issue of fact.
- Read the Full Decision in People v. Sharret, B223752
- Read the Full Decision in Najera v. Huerta, F058850
- Read the Full Decision in Hendrix v. Superior Court, E050065
- Read the Full Decision in Flores v. Georgeson, F059173
- Read the Full Decision in Eriksson v. Nunnink, E049392