News

Case Summaries

Elder Law

[06/23] Gdowski v. Gdowski
Trial court issuance of a protective order against defendant under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is reversed where: 1) a protective order under the Elder Abuse Act may issue on the basis of evidence of past abuse, without any particularized showing that the wrongful acts will be continued or repeated; and 2) the trial court erred in basing its decision in issuing the protective order on counsel's conduct rather than on substantial evidence.

[05/20] Health Care Industry Liability Ins. Program v. Momence Meadows Nursing Center, Inc.
In a dispute involving insurance liability coverage, district court judgment finding that plaintiff had no duty to defend defendant is affirmed where the wrongdoings for which the parties in the underlying suit are attempting to hold defendant liable for are the filing of false claims and unlawful employment actions, not the injuries suffered by residents under defendant's care, and none of the policy provisions cover such claims.

[04/29] People v. Henning
Conviction for financial elder abuse is affirmed where: 1) the jury was given only the erroneous portion of CALCRIM No. 1804 regarding corroboration, and was thus not instructed correctly that the corroborating writing must be false and was not instructed as to the other possible methods of corroboration; but 2) the error was manifestly harmless under any standard of review.

[02/19] Golden Years Homestead, Inc. v. Buckland
In a suit by a nursing home operator against Indiana State Department of Health inspectors alleging violations of its Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution and abuse of process, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) although defendants focused on certain affirmative defenses and the sufficiency of proof on the federal claims, the defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, thus the district court's order was not an improper sua sponte summary judgment on the state law claims; and 2) summary judgment was also appropriate on the merits since the state law claims required proof of malice or ulterior motive.

[02/05] Nagle v. Calumet Park
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed. Plaintiff failed to prove Defendants' discriminatory intent using either the direct or indirect methods.

Read More

Family Law

[07/01] Jenkins v. Jenkins
In a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the return of Petitioner's son to her custody in Israel, judgment for Respondent is affirmed where Petitioner failed to establish that there was an actual "removal or retention" by Respondent or that the alleged retention was "wrongful."

[06/26] Charisma R. v. Christina S.
In a child custody dispute, trial court orders declaring plaintiff a presumed parent of the child and establishing a schedule for reunification is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the finding that the Family Code sec. 7611(d) parentage presumption applies, as the record shows that plaintiff actively participated in the child's conception and cared for her following birth, the limited duration of her parenting of the child does not defeat plaintiff's claim to presumed parent status, and plaintiff received the child into her home and openly held her out as her natural child; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there is no basis to rebut the parentage presumption as substantial evidence supports the finding that the Elisa B. factors are present and that plaintiff actively participated in the child's conception with the understanding she would parent with defendant, and no other facts justified rebuttal of the parentage presumption; and 3) defendant's equal protection claim fails as she has not shown that a case involving a man in plaintiff's circumstances would be decided any differently under the law, and failed to meet her burden of showing that the order declaring plaintiff the second parent was an unconstitutional infringement of her state and federal rights to substantive due process.

[06/25] Batlan v. Bledsoe
In a bankruptcy trustee's motion to avoid a transfer made pursuant to a state court judgment dissolving the Debtor's marriage, the order denying the trustee's motion is affirmed where, under Oregon law, a party who challenges a dissolution judgment must allege and prove "extrinsic fraud," and the trustee failed to do so.

[06/24] P. v. Sweeney
In an action involving a trial court order committing defendant to Porterville State Hospital, the trial court erred where: 1) due process rights are violated when the trial court determines that the charges pending against defendant involved death, great bodily injury, or an act which poses a serious threat of bodily harm to another person under Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 6500 as it is a matter for a jury; and 2) before a jury determines whether a person meets the criteria of Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 6500, the trial court must instruct the jury to find whether the person's mental retardation is a substantial factor in causing serious difficulty in controlling their dangerous behavior. However, the appeal is dismissed as moot since the commitment order has expired.

[06/24] Richmond Med. Ctr. for Women v. Herring
In a challenge to a restriction on late-term abortions, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where: 1) the hypothetical situation posited by Plaintiff did not present a sufficiently frequent circumstance to render the statute wholly unconstitutional for all circumstances; and 2) Plaintiff did not present sufficiently concrete circumstances in which the as-applied challenge could be resolved.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[07/02] Hughes v. Pair
Court of Appeals judgment for defendant in a sexual harassment action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's factual allegations fail to establish the severe or pervasive conduct necessary to pursue a claim of hostile environment sexual harassment under Civil Code sec. 51.9, as the conduct was not so egregious as to alter the conditions of the underlying professional relationship and could not plausibly be construed by a reasonable trier of fact as a threat to commit a sexual assault on plaintiff; and 2) the court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress as plaintiff failed to establish either extreme or outrageous conduct by defendant or that plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress.

[07/01] Thomas v. Carnival Corp.
In a personal injury action involving a slip and fall aboard Defendant cruise line, the District Court's order granting Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is reversed where, under the parties' agreement, the dispute at issue must have some actual relation to the agreement to arbitrate, irrespective of what ship the claims originated from and when suit was brought.

[06/30] Grammer v. John J. Kane Regional Centers
In a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments, district court judgment finding no right of action under the statutes and dismissing the case is reversed and remanded where it is clear that Congress intended to create individual rights in drafting and adopting the Amendments and plaintiff's mother falls squarely within the zone of interest the provisions are meant to protect. In addition, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 provides the proper avenue for relief for the statutory provisions which plaintiff seeks to enforce, as defendant has failed to demonstrate that Congress foreclosed that option by adopting another, more comprehensive enforcement scheme.

[06/30] Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC
In a negligence action, trial court judgment is affirmed where the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies to the activity engaged in by plaintiff at the Burning Man Festival, and thus defendant owed him no duty of care to prevent the injuries he incurred as a result.

[06/30] Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Serv., Inc.
In a negligence suit arising out of an accident in which Plaintiff's husband was injured while serving in Iraq, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the political question doctrine barred the suit because adjudicating Plaintiff's claims would require extensive reexamination and second-guessing of many sensitive judgments surrounding the conduct of a military convoy in war time.

Read More

Probate Trusts

[06/08] Cory v. Toscano
Trial court judgment that a proposed petition to determine the terms of the trust did not violate the trust's no contest clause is affirmed where the handwritten notations on the trust instrument were an attempt to amend the trust and were not part of the original trust agreement, and thus a challenge to its validity is not a contest under Probate Code sec. 21305(a)(3).

[06/05] Ditta v. Conte
In a breach of fiduciary duty action involving the removal of a trustee of an an inter vivos trust, court of appeals' judgment holding that the case was time-barred is reversed and remanded where a statutory limitations period is applicable to suits seeking damages for breach of fiduciary duty but no statute of limitations period restricts a court's discretion to remove a trustee.

[06/04] Sargiss v. Magarelli
In an action against the estate of Plaintiff's ex-husband claiming that the decedent misrepresented his assets in a prior divorce proceeding, the dismissal of the complaint is reversed, where the statute of limitations was tolled prior to Plaintiff's discovery of the alleged fraud.

[05/21] Estate of Beckel
In a probate action, trial court judgment limiting the distribution of an estate to surviving first cousins and the children of predeceased first cousins is reversed where surviving issue includes all lineal descendants of all generations and therefore the decedent's estate must be divided into as many shares as there are first cousins who survived the decedent and first cousins who predeceased the decedent but left surviving issue of any generation.

[05/15] San Diego County Health and Human Serv. Div. v. Amanda B.
In a conservatorship action, postjudgment order denying defendant's petition for a rehearing on her status as a conservatee is reversed and remanded where the court erred in denying defendant's petition for rehearing as to her status as a conservatee and not considering the petition on the merits as the court relied on an unreasonable interpretation of Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 5364.

Read More