Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of defendants' anit-SLAPP motion in an action brought by plaintiffs for express indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief. The trial court held that none of plaintiffs' claims arose from protected speech or petitioning activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.The court affirmed and held that plaintiffs' cross-complaint did not arise from defendants' protected petitioning activity. In this case, plaintiffs' cross-complaint arose from the alleged breach of their agreement to indemnify plaintiffs for any liability attributable to information provided by defendants or defendants' representatives and defendants' underlying fault with regard to their decisionmaking. View "C.W. Howe Partners Inc. v. Mooradian" on Justia Law

Former psychologist at Ironwood State Prison (Ironwood), John Doe, sued his former employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) alleging discrimination, retaliation, and harassment based on disability. Doe also alleged CDCR violated FEHA by failing to accommodate his two disabilities, asthma and dyslexia, by relocating him to a cleaner and quieter office and providing him with requested computer equipment. Finding no triable issues of material fact, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CDCR. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Doe v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a political cartoonist and blogger, filed suit against The Times and others, alleging causes of action for defamation and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff filed suit after The Times published a "note to readers" and a later more detailed report questioning the accuracy of a blog post plaintiff wrote for The Times. The trial court granted defendants' anti-SLAPP motions to strike plaintiff's complaint.In light of Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, the Court of Appeal again affirmed the trial court's orders. The court held that plaintiff's defamation claims arose from The Times articles and both were published in a public forum, concerning issues of public interest. The court also held that plaintiff failed to produce evidence demonstrating a probability of prevailing on his defamation claims, where The Times articles were fair and true reports of an LAPD investigation that was central to the substance of the articles, and accordingly absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d). In regard to plaintiff's employment claims, the court held that Wilson confirmed that The Times met its burden to show plaintiff's employment claims arose from protected activity. Furthermore, plaintiff could not prevail on the merits of his claims for wrongful termination and breach of an express oral contract. View "Rall v. Tribune 365, LLC" on Justia Law

East Palo Alto Police Sergeant Simmont received an alert of shots fired in a high-crime neighborhood where Simmont had responded to murders. Simmont and other officers spoke with witnesses at the address, who reported seeing flashes from behind a boat in the driveway. Officers found spent shell casings near the garage. Simmont testified that he began “investigating whether or not we had a victim or a shooter [who] was hiding out.” He pounded on a garage door and announced police presence. No one responded. Officers spoke with people at the residence's front door. Simmont claims Rubio’s father granted permission to search the house and the garage. Rubio emerged from the garage, locking the door behind him, then approached, yelling for the officers to shoot him. After detaining Rubio, Simmont and another officer kicked the door open and entered the garage, which was a converted apartment. The officers observed an explosive device and a pistol on the shelf, then obtained a warrant, reentered, and found another handgun, bullets, body armor, spent shell casings, and methamphetamine. Surveillance video showed Rubio walking down the driveway, pulling out a revolver, and firing into the air.The court of appeal first affirmed Rubio’s convictions, relying on the community caretaking exception to uphold the search. Based on a subsequent California Supreme Court decision, the court granted rehearing and reversed. The need to render emergency aid justifies warrantless entry only where officers have “specific and articulable facts” showing that an intrusion into the home was necessary. It is not enough that officers seek to rule out “the possibility that someone . . . might require aid.” View "People v. Rubio" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the school district's cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. In the underlying action, Margaret Williams and her LLC filed suit against the school district, alleging that her termination was retaliatory. Williams also alleged that the school district unlawfully caused her arsenic poisoning.The court explained that, if the court were to enforce the school district's request, the indemnity provision would require Williams LLC to fund the school district's defense against the very litigation the LLC and Williams brought against the school district. Therefore, the school district's cross-complaint arose from that litigation or the LLC's refusal to sabotage it -- each of which was protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Furthermore, the school district sought to require the LLC not only to fund the school district's defense, but also to reimburse the school district for any award secured by Williams or the LLC. The court explained that such a bar to meaningful recovery embodied a high degree of substantive unconscionability, sufficient -- when combined with the procedural unconscionability shown through Williams LLC's unrebutted evidence of adhesion, oppression, and surprise -- to establish that the indemnity provision was unconscionable. The court limited the provision to avoid an unconscionable result, and held that the school district failed to show error in the dismissal of the breach of contract and declaratory relief claims, as well as the dismissal of the school district's other cross-claims. View "Long Beach Unified School District v. Margaret Williams, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against actor Shia LaBeouf for assault, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after LaBeouf confronted plaintiff and called him a "racist" after plaintiff refused to serve LaBeouf and his companion alcohol. LaBeouf filed a special motion to strike plaintiff's first amended complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of LaBeouf's anti-SLAPP motion, holding that LaBeouf's conduct did not fall within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute because his statements and conduct did not involve a matter of public interest or concern. In this case, LaBeouf's statement was not directed at someone in the public eye and there was no evidence that LaBeouf's comments addressed an ongoing controversy or an issue that had garnered any public interest. Rather, the court held that the statement concerned an isolated dispute between a bartender and an inebriated client over the bartender's refusal to serve the client alcohol at a restaurant. The court reasoned that, although footage of the altercation was later disseminated to many people on the internet and television, a private dispute does not become a matter of public interest simply because it was widely communicated to the public. Furthermore, the fact that LaBeouf used the word "racist" did not convert the statement into the type of speech entitled to anti-SLAPP protection. View "Bernstein v. LaBeouf" on Justia Law

In 1984, Ashmus was charged with offenses including first-degree murder and rape. On Ashmus’s pretrial motion, the Sacramento County court transferred venue to San Mateo County. After Ashmus was convicted, the San Mateo County Superior Court imposed a death sentence. In 2014, Ashmus filed a second habeas petition in the California Supreme Court to exhaust certain claims raised in his federal habeas petition. In 2019, the California Supreme Court transferred Ashmus’s petition to the sentencing court as called for by Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016, Under Penal Code section 1509, added by Proposition 66, “any petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of death” should be transferred to “the court which imposed the sentence . . . unless good cause is shown. For petitions filed before Proposition 66 went into effect, section 1509(g) provides, “the court may transfer the petition to the court which imposed the sentence.” The Attorney General successfully moved to transfer the petition to Sacramento County Superior Court. The court of appeal concluded the trial court misapplied section 1509. The meaning of “the court which imposed the sentence,” is clear and unambiguous; there is no dispute that the San Mateo County Superior Court imposed Ashmus’s sentence. View "Ashmus v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

After plaintiffs filed a malicious prosecution action against defendant, who was the attorney for the opposing party in a prior litigation, defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal held that the evidence did not demonstrate a reasonable probability plaintiffs would prevail on the merits of their claim, because plaintiffs' action was time-barred. In this case, the four-year provision of the statute of limitations expired prior to the filing of the complaint, and a later discovery could not extend that period. Finally, the court noted that plaintiffs' plea for justice did not fall on deaf ears, but that the court was constrained to follow the law and to enforce the statute of limitations. View "Garcia v. Rosenberg" on Justia Law

Jones is serving a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for a 1994 murder he committed when he was 19 years old. In 2018, Jones filed a petition to recall his sentence, citing Penal Code 1170(d)(2), which applies to a defendant who is serving an LWOP sentence for an offense committed when the defendant was “under 18 years of age” and who has been incarcerated for at least 15 years.The court of appeal upheld the denial of relief, rejecting an argument that section 1170(d)(2) violates equal protection because it denies LWOP offenders ages 18-25 the same opportunity to petition for resentencing that is afforded to similarly-situated juvenile offenders without any rational basis for doing so. LWOP offenders who were 18-25 years old when they committed their offenses are adult offenders, not similarly situated to juvenile offenders. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly found that “children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing.” To determine the age at which the diminished culpability of a youthful offender should no longer result in a categorically different sentence, a line must be drawn. The Legislature could reasonably decide that for LWOP offenders, the line should be drawn at age 18, rather than at some later date when the brain is fully developed. Drawing a bright line at age 18 establishes an objective and easily implemented measure, which has been used by the U.S. Supreme Court. View "In re Jones" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's partial denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff filed suit after defendant posted comments in Facebook that she alleged were, among other things, defamatory.The court held that plaintiff's complaint arose from protected activity, because the comments upon which plaintiff based her claims implicated an issue of public interest. In this case, defendant's comments described a widespread pattern of identity theft and multi-level marketing scams. The court also held that plaintiff met her burden of showing a probability of prevailing on her defamation claim, because her claim had at least minimal merit. The court explained that the statements complained of – that she had been indicted, that she was a convicted criminal, and that she had stolen the identities of thousands of people – were plainly defamatory in character and would tend to expose their subject to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy.The court commented on civility, sexism, and persuasive brief writing, stating that the opening paragraph in defense counsel's reply brief, which commented on the trial judge's personal characteristics and appearance, reflected gender bias and disrespect for the judicial system. View "Briganti v. Chow" on Justia Law