Case note - California court rules against Bakery and Puts Statute Prohibiting Discrimination Above First Amendment Rights

 

California appellate court makes plain it considers First Amendment protections inferior to state-level statutes against discrimination

 

In Civil Rights Dept. v. Cathy's Creations (March 5, 2025, F08580) the Fifth District of  California refused to properly apply precedent upholding the breadth of First Amendment.  Recall that California all but gutted the First Amendment during the three years of the pandemic, caused by the release of the COVID-19 virus by a lab in Wuhan, China (reference:  the United States Department of Energy and the Central Intelligence Agency) and, indeed, California courts did little to stop the infringement upon freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.  Nonetheless, the lack of consideration given to the First Amendment in the recent Cathy's Creations opinion is troubling.  As the Fifth District framed the issue:

 

This appeal involves a bakery’s refusal to sell a predesigned white cake, popularly sold for a variety of events, because it was intended for use at the customers’ same-sex wedding reception. The State of California, through the Civil Rights Department (the CRD), filed suit on behalf of real parties in interest Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio (the Rodriguez-Del Rios) when Tastries Bakery (Tastries) refused to provide them the cake for their wedding pursuant to the bakery’s policy that prohibited the sale of any preordered cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The case culminated in a bench trial on the CRD’s claim of discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq. (UCRA)), and the free speech and free exercise affirmative defenses of defendants
Tastries, Tastries’s owner Cathy’s Creations, Inc. (Cathy’s Creations), and Cathy’s Creations’s sole shareholder Catharine Miller (Miller) (collectively defendants).2
The trial court concluded there was no violation of the UCRA because the CRD
failed to prove intentional discrimination, and concluded Miller’s referral of the
Rodriguez-Del Rios to another bakery constituted full and equal access under the UCRA.
The trial court proceeded to consider defendants’ affirmative defenses as an alternative matter, and concluded the preparation of a preordered cake by defendants always constitutes expression protected by the federal Constitution’s First Amendment when it is sold for a wedding, and, as applied here, concluded the UCRA compelled defendants to speak a message about marriage to which they objected. . . .

 

One should further recall that in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n (2018) 584 U.S. 617, the United States Supreme Court ruled a bakery could not be forced to make a cake it found offensive and that the Colorado state government had evidenced hostility toward the baker's religious belief when it attempted to force the baker to do so.  As Justice Kennedy succinctly stated, "[w]hen the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires."  However, the Fifth District did not apply the holding in Masterpiece so as to constrain the ability of California to fine and harass Cathy's Creations, explaining:

 

If the mere act of providing and/or delivering a predesigned product for use at a same-sex wedding conveys a message of celebration and endorsement for same-sex
marriage, a baker could potentially refuse to sell any goods or any cakes for same-sex weddings as a protected form of expression; but this would be a denial of goods and services that likely goes “beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public .…” (Masterpiece, supra, 584 U.S. at p. 632.) Expanded logically, this reasoning would extend to a whole range of routine products and services provided for a wedding or wedding reception, including those highly visible items like jewelry, makeup and hair design for the wedding party, table centerpieces, stemware and alcohol for a toast, and catering displays. This is tantamount to business establishments being “allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”
(Id. at p. 634.) If mere product provision to a wedding is considered expressive conduct,
then all wedding vendors could potentially claim their refusal to serve same-sex couples. . . (Id., pp. 56-57.)

 

In other words, Cathy's Creations explained that California could not and should not actually apply the First Amendment, despite the Masterpiece holding from the United States Supreme Court, because if we do then we will not be able to enforce anti-discrimination laws. But this is exactly what the First Amendment does:  puts real limits on the scope of government powers and, of course, as Masterpiece held "anti-discriminaton" laws are not exempt from the purview of the Bill of Rights.

Analysis

 

Even if one were to factually distinguish this case from the cake-baking case ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court, the discussion and holding in Cathy's Creations is troubling.  First Amendment protections permit persons to refuse to voluntarily engage in actions which require speech and that they find offensive and/or violate their religious beliefs should be of the utmost consideration in terms of any court's legal analysis.  But Justice Meehan and his two colleagues dismissed application of these crucial limits on government power because to do so would render null a state statute prohibiting discrimination.  The justification was rather slim, resting on the silly notion that though baking a cake requires care and skill (and, as I would add, a bit of love) such care and skill is not "expressive:"

Because we conclude the cake defendants refused to provide in this instance was not an expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, defendants’ free speech defense fails. A huge number of routinely produced goods in the stream of commerce are designed with attention to aesthetic details that may reflect the designer’s sense of color, balance and perspective, and while those elements might be viewed as artistic features, they are primarily applied and intended for broad appeal and profitability—not as a medium for self-expression. While a routinely produced and multi-purpose cake like the one here might be baked and decorated with skill and creativity, we cannot conclude it is inherently expressive. (Id., p. 57.)

 

In other words, the Court's analysis is fundamentally flawed because it failed to apply the analysis mandated by Masterpiece.  Instead, it made it very clear a state-mandated prescription against discrimination must take precedence over Federal protections because, well, otherwise, the state law could not be given its full intended effect.  

 

This begs the question:  when will religious freedom and freedom of speech be restored to California?  And an even better question:  why do those who favor unlimited government power seem especially keen on harassing small businesses that do not have the resources to fight back?

 

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

Dissenting Opinion Spotlight: Appeal should be re-briefed where jury found the actual tortfeasor had no liability

When majority upholds verdict finding School District but not employee is liable, a dissenting Justice asks the parties to submit new briefs

What happens in an appeal if the parties do not brief what may ultimately be the dispositive legal issue?  A remarkable dissent by Justice Richman in the First District's opinion in A.H. v. Tamalpais Union High School District (September 24, 2024) A165493 and A166684, posits that in such an instance should not decide the case on the issues actually briefed, but should instead ask for re-briefing on the most important legal issue raised by the case.

The complaint by A.H. alleged, inter alia, that he was molested by the employee of the defendant School District:

While still in middle school, A.H. began taking private tennis lessons from Burgos, and he joined the Tamalpais High School tennis team as a freshman. A.H. viewed Burgos as a mentor and the “most important person in [his] life” other than his parents. Burgos began sexually abusing A.H. in 2003. The abuse took place in Burgos’s office and later in the coaches’ locker room, both of which were next to the school’s boys’ locker room.m (Id., p. 2.)

The jury found for the plaintiff and the appellate court upheld the verdict, finding the defense had not raised any issue as to either jury instructions of the evidence admitted which required the verdict to be overturned:

On appeal, the District raises two claims: first, that the trial court improperly instructed the jury and, second, that the trial court erred in allowing A.H. to present inadmissible evidence of Burgos’s conduct with others. Finding no error, we affirm. (Id., p. 1.)

The dissent, however, found the parties had not briefed a crucial issue, and therefore dissented despite the fact it found no fault with the majority's analysis "as far as it goes."  According to Justice Richman, the crucial issue not briefed was not waived by the appellant but should in fact be re-briefed:

But there is where I part company with my colleagues. I would go further, and do something that to my knowledge this court has not done in my 18-and-a-half years’ experience here: raise on our own, and seek supplemental briefing on, an issue “not proposed or briefed by any party.” I would do this under the authority of Government Code section 68081, which provides in pertinent part as follows: 

“Before the Supreme Court, a court of appeal, or the appellate division of a superior court renders a decision in a proceeding other than a summary denial of a petition for an extraordinary writ, based upon an issue which was not proposed or briefed by any party to the proceeding, the court shall afford the parties an opportunity to present their views on the matter through supplemental briefing.” (Dissent, p. 2.)

Specifically, the dissent argued the parties had not fully briefed the crucial issue of "whether the verdict allocating 100 percent responsibility for A.H.’s harm to the District, zero percent to Burgos, can support the judgment." (Id., pp. 1-2.)  The majority opinion noted that  the School District did not argue the apportionment of fault between itself and the employee was wrong, and therefore failed to make the distinct argument that the person committing the sexual assault cannot have zero liability while the party who is liable for this person's acts (for failing to supervise or properly hire him) has 100%.  

While the majority found the District had waived this argument, the dissent wanted the Appellate Court to utilize its power to order re-briefing so that this central flaw in the verdict could be considered.  As the dissent explained succinctly, it simply cannot be that the District is liable for the tort of its employee but the employee himself was not liable:

The jury went beyond the “extraordinary” request by counsel for A.H., and allocated 100 percent of responsibility for the harm to the District, zero to Burgos. That cannot be: if Burgos’s sexual battery did not harm A.H., then the District could not have been negligent in hiring him or failing to supervise him. Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 (Ortega), a case cited by the District is, on this point, on point. (Dissent, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

Breaking news - Supreme Court rules legislative bodies cannot "take" private property by way of untethered "fees" (Sheetz v. County of El Dorado)

United States Supreme Court:  legislative bodies cannot "take" property by way of unlimited "fees" 

A recent Supreme Court opinion illustrates how lower courts often get it completely wrong, despite apparently clear precedent, and as this case shows, this is particularly likely to occur when courts get swept along with a judicial trend.  Such an unfortunate trend is interpreting the Fifth Amendment's bar against taking property without just compensation so narrowly as to permit the government to do virtually whatever it wants to a landowner's property, no matter logic or the law. 

In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. 22–1074 (April 12, 2024), a unanimous Supreme Court found California courts had it entirely wrong when they found (the term "rubber stamp" comes to mind) an outrageous "fee" a landowner must pay to build a home -- having no relationship to the services provided or the cost of the project to local government -- did not implicate the bar against the "taking" of private property. The practical effect of ignoring the full effect of the Firth Amendment is that "fees" enacted by a legislative body have no upward limit and may take five, ten, or more percent of the value of the property, and a property owner may not even bring a Fifth Amendment claim.

The opinion authored by Justice Barett found these courts had misapplied prior precedent.  As the syllabus to the opinion sets forth, the issue was whether a California county could impose a $23,420 "traffic impact fee" upon an ordinary residential landowner unlucky enough to own a lot in El Dorado County and who wished to build a home:

As a condition of receiving a residential building permit, petitioner George Sheetz was required by the County of El Dorado to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee. The fee was part of a “General Plan” enacted by the County’s Board of Supervisors to address increasing demand for public services spurred by new development. The fee amount was not based on the costs of traffic impacts specifically attributable to Sheetz’s particular project, but rather was assessed according to a rate schedule that took into account the type of development and its location within the County. Sheetz paid the fee under protest and obtained the permit. He later sought relief in state court, claiming that conditioning the building permit on the payment of a traffic impact fee constituted an unlawful “exaction” of money in violation of the Takings Clause. In Sheetz’s view, the Court’s decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825, and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374, required the County to make an individualized determination that the fee imposed on him was necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his project. The courts below ruled against Sheetz based on their view that Nollan and Dolan apply only to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators, not to a fee like this one imposed on a class of property owners by Board-enacted legislation. 84 Cal. App. 5th 394, 402, 300 Cal. Rptr. 3d 308, 312.

In other words, the trial court, the Third Appellate District of California, and the California Supreme Court (which denied review) did not give full effect to precedent such as Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994) indicating a fee with no nexus to the effect of the actual development is a "taking."  As Justice Barret wrote:

The California Court of Appeal rejected that argument because the traffic impact fee was imposed by legislation, and, according to the court, Nollan and Dolan apply only to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators. That is incorrect. The Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions. (Sheetz., p. 14.)

Justice Barret and the remaining eight justices all agreed the fact a fee was imposed by a legislative body, rather than being imposed by a regulatory power, did not insulate said fee from scrutiny.  Simply put, the Bill of Rights applies equally to the executive and legislative branches of government.  

Therefore, the majority opinion explained the proper test for considering whether a "fee" is a taking:

Our decisions in Nollan and Dolan address this potential abuse of the permitting process. There, we set out a two-part test modeled on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597 (1972) (government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests”). First, permit conditions must have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land-use interest. Nollan, 483 U. S., at 837. The nexus requirement ensures that the government is acting to further its stated purpose, not leveraging its permitting monopoly to exact private property without paying for it. See id., at 841. Second, permit conditions must have “‘rough proportionality’” to the development’s impact on the land-use interest. Dolan, 512 U. S., at 391. A permit condition that requires a landowner to give up more than is necessary to mitigate harms resulting from new development has the same potential for abuse as a condition that is unrelated to that purpose. See id., at 393. This test ap- plies regardless of whether the condition requires the land- owner to relinquish property or requires her to pay a “monetary exactio[n]” instead of relinquishing the property. Koontz, 570 U. S., at 612–615. (Id., p. 6.)

Analysis

The degree to which the lower courts "got it wrong" is stunning, and, in particular, the narrow reading of Nollan/Dolan is quite troubling.  As to the failure of the California Supreme Court to show any interest in preventing local government from unlawfully taking private property, the fact it declined to review an appellate opinion finding one of the protections of the Bill of Rights does not apply simply because it was the legislature that violated a citizen’s rights speaks for itself.

Though the opinion was unanimous, it leaves open the question of whether a particular fee is permissible, to wit, whether a particular fee meets constitutional muster, i.e, whether it has an  "“‘essential nexus’” to the government’s land-use interest and has “‘rough proportionality’” to a property’s impact on that interest." (Concurrence by J. Gorsuch, p. 1.)

Of course, if a legislature or similar body may impose an unlimited "fee" upon someone wishing to build a single home, under the rubric that limitations on such fees do not apply to legislative enactments, then the Fifth Amendment "takings clause" has no effect as long as the law classifies the taking as a legislatively-mandated "fee."

As noted in his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch is of the opinion whether a fee is a "taking" does not depend upon whether it is imposed upon a single property or a class of properties as the same constitutional rules apply to the rights of the "many" as they do to the "few."  Justice Gorsuch notes the majority opinion leaves this question for another day:

The Court notes but does not address a separate question: whether the Nollan/Dolan test operates differently when an alleged taking affects a “class of properties” rather than “a particular development.” (Id.)

Indeed, the concurrence of Justice Kavanaugh, to which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined, recognizes this issue has not been resolved.  However, Justice Kavanaugh takes the view the Sheetz opinion does not prohibit local government from tailoring land-use fees based upon the effect of an entire development in toto rather than requiring that the fee have a nexus to the effect of a single property owner.

Finally, the role of the Pacifica Legal Foundation must be noted. As did the Cato Institute, Pacifica filed an amicus curiae brief.  If it were not for the efforts of his own counsel and these "friends of the court, Mr. Sheetz might still be stuck paying a nearly $24,000 "traffic fee" to build what the Supreme Court termed "a modest prefabricated house" for his wife and grandson.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

Res ipsa loquitur does not apply to ordinary negligence claim (Howard v. Accor)

 

Hotel operator not liable for showerhead malfunction under res ipsa loquitur theory

The Second District, Division Eight has affirmed a grant of summary judgment by the Hon. Jill Feeney, Judge Presiding, of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Howard v. Accor Management (April 3, 2024) B320603.)  The plaintiff alleged two theories of negligence, claiming that:

As Monique Howard went to shower during her hotel stay, the handheld shower head fell apart. Howard cut herself and fell. Later she sued the hotel for negligence and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment. We affirm because Howard failed to mount a triable issue of material fact on the key issue of notice and failed to establish the applicability of a venerable but inapt doctrine—res ipsa loquitur. (Id., pp. 1-2.)

Specifically, plaintiff alleged the shower head malfunctioned not after she used it in the morning but after she did so later in the day, and thus only after her hotel room had been cleaned, and that on this second use the shower head fell apart:

As soon as I stepped in the shower and turned the water on I noticed that it was spraying me in the face, which was a little odd for me because I had took a shower earlier that day. I was -- kind surprised me, plus I had full makeup on. It was spraying me in my face. When that happened I went to take the shower off of the shower handle and that is when it just dismantled and fell apart.” (Id., p. 2)

Defendant Accor moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed, finding plaintiff had not shown there was a triable issue as to the issue of whether the hotel had any notice of the defect in the shower head as plaintiff could not show either actual or constructive notice.

The appellate court also found that plaintiff could not show the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur," Latin for "the thing speaks of itself," applied.  This doctrine may be used to show the negligence of the defendant from the factual scenario, i.e., that it was "more likely than not"  defendant was negligent, without the need to provide more specifics as to what the defendant actually did that breached the standard of care.  The Second District rejected this argument, noting the plaintiff had not proven the elements of the doctrine because, inter alia, the trial court had sustained objections to the proferred testimony of the plaintiff's safety expert, Brad Avrit, on the grounds his statements involved improper legal opinion.

Importantly, the court noted res ipsa did not apply because the facts did not show it was more likely the defendant's negligence, as opposed to some other cause, caused the injury:

Howard’s papers ask us to make many leaps of logic to infer it was more likely than not that the housekeeper’s negligence caused the shower wand to break. [Citation.] Howard’s deposition testimony leads to reasonable inferences the cause was something else: the shower head sprayed Howard because it was facing her, and Howard’s quick reach for the wand or an inherent defect could have caused its dismantling. There is no inconsistency between these causes and Howard’s and her boyfriend’s statements about the care they took with their earlier showers. The evidence does not show the shower wand was broken before Howard grabbed it. When describing the incident at her deposition, Howard did not say the wand was sharp or broken then. Nor does Howard’s declaration say she was cut before the wand fell apart. (Id., pp. 7-8.)

Conclusion and analysis

The opinion of Justice Wiley affirmed the grant of judgment in favor of hotelier Accor, finding the trial court made no errors of law and that the rulings upon the objections to Mr. Avrit's opinions were well within that court's sound discretion.  The key portion of the opinion is the discussion of res ipsa loquitur, which the trial court found was only applicable to show negligence when there was evidence, and not mere speculation, to show that all of its elements applied.  These elements, which the Howard court strictly construed, were summarized at pages nine and ten: 

. . . [A]s our Supreme Court has explained it, “certain kinds of accidents are so likely to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence that one may fairly say ‘the thing speaks for itself.’ ” (Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 825.) The doctrine has three requirements: (1) the accident was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur absent someone’s negligence; (2) the instrumentality of harm was within the defendant’s exclusive control; (3) the plaintiff did not voluntarily contribute to the harm. (Id. at pp. 825–826 & 836.)

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

Hot topic -- Posting a Bond to Stay Enforcement of Judgment Upon Appeal

Why a Civil Defendant May Need to Post a Bond to Appeal

A certain high-profile defendant has been in the news lately in regards to posting a bond to stay enforcement of a large judgment, so large it is likely (though far from certain) that it will be reduced on appeal.  I will not name the defendant but suffice it to say that the coverage of this issue has evidenced more political bias than understanding of the legal concepts involved.  A review of California law involving appeals and enforcement of judgments may therefore be helpful.

A judgment creditor may generally start enforcing the judgment upon notice of entry of the judgment

The plaintiff or other party with a monetary judgment in their favor becomes the judgment creditor while the party with a monetary judgment against them is a judgment debtor.  Once the Clerk of the Court has "entered" a judgment in the record, said judgment may generally be enforced up to ten years from its date.  Such enforcement may begin immediately unless, for example, the trial court grants a stay or the judgment debtor chooses one of the options below. 

 

As a practical matter, there is usually some delay in enforcement as a judgment creditor should obtain one or more "abstracts of judgment" from the Clerk of the Court in the county where the judgment has been entered.  The creditor must then "record" these in any counties where the debtor wishes to enforce the judgment by, for example, filing a lien.

General Rule: judgments are stayed pending filing a notice of appeal

A defendant in a civil suit generally has 60 days after being given proper notice of entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal. (California Rules of Court, rule 2.)  As an aside, there is a complex series of extensions related to filing post-trial motions such as a motion for a new trial.

Judgments are generally "stayed" upon filing an appeal, meaning they cannot be enforced, but, as discussed below, there are exceptions, the most important involving the enforcement of judgments for sums of money. (Code of Civil Procedure section 916; Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1.)

Exception:  monetary judgments

Crucially, monetary judgments are not automatically stayed pending an appeal. (Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1)  This is for the obvious reason that a judgment debtor would then have an incentive to appeal even if there is no merit to the appeal; such a delay, of course, may make it less likely the judgment creditor will later be able to find the judgment debtor's assets.

There is an exception to this exception, though.  Judgment amounts that are for "costs of suit" only are stayed despite the rule noted above.  If a party makes a successful offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, i.e., a reasonable offer to compromise is made and then rejected, the enforcement of costs awarded to a successful offeror under section 998 is stayed upon filing a notice of appeal. (Id.)

How to appeal without paying the judgment creditor 

A judgment debtor is subject to attempts to seize their assets, garnish their wages, or place a lien upon their accounts if the judgment is not stayed pending appeal.  Because it may be difficult to recover funds once paid to the judgment debtor, the judgment creditor should explore the options below to avoid payment of the judgment while the appeal is pending.

1. Posting a bond or undertaking by an "admitted" or "personal" surety

This is most often done by posting a bond by "an admitted surety insurer," meaning a "surety" - someone who will post the bond and then be responsible for payment of the judgment if the appeal is not successful - that is licensed in California. (Id.)  The bond amount would be 150% of the judgment. (Id.)  The additional amount beyond the judgment itself may be necessary to cover the "simple interest" upon the judgment at the annual rate of ten percent.

It goes without saying that an admitted surely will require payment in some percentage of the bond or undertaking to provide this service.

The posting of a bond or undertaking may also be done by a friend or relative, i.e., a "personal surety." (Id.)  The amount posted by the personal surety must be 200% of the judgment. (Id.)  

The requirements for being a personal surety are found in Code of Civil Procedure section 995.510 and include 1) being a resident of California, and 2) having net assets in California that exceed 200% of the judgment.  Neither an attorney nor the "principal," the judgment debtor, may act as a personal surety. (Id.) 

2. Depositing money with the Court

If one cannot obtain a bond or undertaking and nevertheless wishes to appeal, does one have to pay the judgment directly to the creditor to avoid seizure of assets?  The answer is no:  the judgment debtor may deposit money or negotiable securities directly with the Court. (Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1)

The complete text of section 917.1 is quoted below:

917.1. (a) Unless an undertaking is given, the perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the judgment or order in the trial court if the judgment or order is for any of the following:
(1) Money or the payment of money, whether consisting of a special fund or not, and whether payable by the appellant or another party to the action.
(2) Costs awarded pursuant to Section 998 which otherwise would not have been awarded as costs pursuant to Section 1033.5.
(3) Costs awarded pursuant to Section 1141.21 which otherwise would not have been awarded as costs pursuant to Section 1033.5.
(b) The undertaking shall be on condition that if the judgment or order or any part of it is affirmed or the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed, the party ordered to pay shall pay the amount of the judgment or order, or the part of it as to which the judgment or order is affirmed, as entered after the receipt of the remittitur, together with any interest which may have accrued pending the appeal and entry of the remittitur, and costs which may be awarded against the appellant on appeal. This section shall not apply in cases where the money to be paid is in the actual or constructive custody of the court; and such cases shall be governed, instead, by the provisions of Section 917.2. The undertaking shall be for double the amount of the judgment or order unless given by an admitted surety insurer in which event it shall be for one and one-half times the amount of the judgment or order. The liability on the undertaking may be enforced if the party ordered to pay does not make the payment within 30 days after the filing of the remittitur from the reviewing court.
(c) If a surety on the undertaking pays the judgment, either with or without action, after the judgment is affirmed, the surety is substituted to the rights of the creditor and is entitled to control, enforce, and satisfy the judgment, in all respects as if the surety had recovered the judgment.
(d) Costs awarded by the trial court under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 shall be included in the amount of the judgment or order for the purpose of applying paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) and subdivision (b). However, no undertaking shall be required pursuant to this section solely for costs awarded under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

Attorney disqualification is improper remedy for failure to produce documents and respond to subpoena

The Second District, Division Seven, has ruled that while an attorney who fails to produce documents and/or produce a privilege log may be subject to sanctions, or perhaps even referral to the State Bar, a trial court erred when it instead disqualified said counsel from representing one of the parties. (Sunholm v. Hollywood Press Association (February 27, 2024) B324842.)  This is true even though the document withheld may have contained the other party's privileged information and, further, the to-be disqualified counsel was less than forthright about whether he currently possessed privileged material.

In Sundholdm privileged documents were accidentally filed and served upon counsel for plaintiff, who had sued the Holywood Foreign Press Association after he was expelled.  HFPA mistakenly attached a draft copy of its by-laws to its complaint notwithstanding that these by-laws were marked as attorney-client privileged material.  HFPA made an ex parte application to strike these by-laws from the record, which request was granted.  An amended complaint was then filed with the final version of the by-laws attached, as these did not contain any privileged material.  

Counsel Quinto of One LLP, attorney for plaintiff Sundholm, was then the subject of a motion to disqualify brought by the HFPA after it was alleged that he had, inter alia, 1) kept a copy of the privileged material, and 2) failed to respond to a deposition subpoena to produce documents including the privileged material.  This motion to disqualify of HFPA was made alongside its motion to compel production of the document which Quinto possessed and coyly said might be privileged.  Sundholm then sought to dismiss the remainder of his complaint against HFPA to avoid either motion being granted.  

Wendy W. Y. Chang, Judge presiding of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, found the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion to compel due to the dismissal of the remainder of the complaint. The trial court nonetheless held it could rule upon the motion to disqualify and granted said motion.

The appellate court overturned the trial court’s grant of the motion to disqualify, not because it endorsed Quinto’s conduct, but because such was not the proper remedy for Quinto’s action.  In an opinion written by Justice Feuer, the court held:

We agree with the trial court that Quinto improperly refused to produce documents in response to a subpoena from HFPA seeking HFPA documents in Quinto’s possession that were privileged or to provide a privilege log. But disqualification of an attorney affects a party’s right to counsel of choice, and it should not be used to punish an attorney for improper conduct. Quinto’s conduct could have been addressed by an award of sanctions or, if appropriate, reporting the conduct to the State Bar of California. The drastic remedy of disqualification of counsel is appropriate only where the attorney improperly or inadvertently received information protected by the opposing party’s attorney-client privilege, the information is material to the proceeding, and its use would prejudice the opposing party in the proceeding. Here, there was no showing the HFPA documents would prejudice HFPA in the proceeding. We reverse. (Id., p. 2.)

Key to the court’s finding the trial court erred was the drastic nature of the remedy of disqualification of counsel.  The Second District explained disqualification is appropriate only where the following test is met: 1) opposing counsel improperly or inadvertently receives information protected by the opposing party’s attorney-client privilege, 2) the information is material to the proceeding itself, and 3) use of such by opposing party would result in actual prejudice of party seeking disqualification.  HFPA, however, could not establish it suffered prejudice from the retention of the privileged material given the suit against it was dismissed.

Analysis: mistakes — whether inadvertent or intentional — were made by counsel for both parties

Counsel for HFPA — Robert Ellison— admitted that a draft copy of the by-laws which included attorney-client privileged information was filed with the Court and served on opposing counsel.  Though swiftly corrected, this was a potential breach of the duty of due care owed to the client, necessitating the ex parte application to strike this matter.

At the same time, counsel for Quinto failed to either produce the privileged document or produce a privilege log detailing what document was being withheld.

Unresolved ethical issues, including “back ups” of information which should be "returned"

The Court of Appeal found that because HFPA could not establish prejudice from the retention of the privileged information, it did not need to consider whether Quinto acted unethically.  However, as the Court of Appeal explained at footnote six, the scenario in Sundholm implicates the ethical duty of counsel to disclose and possibly return inadvertently-disclosed privileged material:   

              

Pursuant to State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pages 656 to 657, “When a lawyer who receives materials that obviously appear to be subject to an attorney-client privilege or otherwise clearly appear to be confidential and privileged and where it is reasonably apparent that the materials were provided or made available through inadvertence, the lawyer receiving such materials should refrain from examining the materials any more than is essential to ascertain if the materials are privileged, and shall immediately notify the sender that he or she possesses material that appears to be privileged. The parties may then proceed to resolve the situation by agreement or may resort to the court for guidance with the benefit of protective orders and other judicial intervention as may be justified. We do, however, hold that whenever a lawyer ascertains that he or she may have privileged attorney-client material that was inadvertently provided by another, that lawyer must notify the party entitled to the privilege of that fact.” (See Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 807, 817-818 [adopting the State Fund holding and extending it to material protected by the work product doctrine].) 

The opinion therefore does not provide sufficient guidance to say with certainty whether or not Quinto acted unethically, instead merely hinting that he may have.  The appellate court also did not discuss the issue of what is to occur after a party notifies the other party it has inadvertently received privileged material.  

In the analog era, of course, the answer was often that the party “returns” the privileged material to the party who inadvertently disclosed such. As California Rules of Professional Responsibility, Rule 4.4, comment [1] states:

[1] If a lawyer determines this rule applies to a transmitted writing,* the lawyer should return the writing* to the sender, seek to reach agreement with the sender regarding the disposition of the writing,* or seek guidance from a tribunal.* (See Rico v. Mitsubishi (2007) 42 Cal.4th 907. . . .

But what does this mean in the digital era?  

Even if a document is “returned” to its sender, it most likely has already been scanned.  Moreover, even if it has ostensibly been “deleted,” a copy of the privileged material may be saved on a local or remote backup server.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn

Short take-away -- "friends with benefits" may not may not qualify as a "dating relationship" under California law

A "friends with benefits" relationship may or may not qualify as a "dating relationship" under California law for purposes of application of domestic violence law. (M.A. v. B. F. (February 5, 2024) G061598.)  The Fourth District Division Three summarized the issue and its holding as follows:

We are asked here to determine whether a relationship characterized in modern parlance — and by the plaintiff in this case — as “friends with benefits” constitutes a dating relationship under Family Code section 6210, so as to support a tort claim for domestic violence. Whether such a dating relationship exists is inherently a fact-intensive inquiry, not susceptible to resolution based on shorthand labels or descriptors. We therefore do not hold a “friends with benefits” relationship is necessarily a dating relationship or that it can never be one. We simply conclude, on the specific record before us, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the relationship between plaintiff M.A. and defendant B.F. was not a dating relationship within the meaning of the relevant statutes. We affirm. (Id., pp. 1-2.)

This issue arises because California's Civil Code section 1708.6(a) provides the tort of "domestic violence" requires a "relationship."  Further, Penal Code section 13700 defines domestic violence to include "dating or engagement relationship" and Family Code section 6210 has a similar definition.

The majority in M.A. affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of B.A. under a "substantial evidence" standard of review, showing deference to its review of the evidence.  It therefore found the trial court had the discretion to find, or, in the case here, to not find, a "friends with benefits" situation involved a "relationship," noting "different inferences" could be drawn from the facts. (Id., p. 13.)  The majority also noted section 6210 uses the phrase "frequent, intimate associations” but does not define such.

Justice Sanchez dissented from the majority opinion written by Justice Gooding.  The dissent concluded that under the facts here plaintiff M.A. fell under "the category of victims the law was meant to protect" no matter the on-and-off nature of the encounters between her and defendant. (Id., p. 6.)

What the opinion does not explain

It is unclear from the record here why the plaintiff did not also bring a tort claim for assault and battery or other related torts, which claims do not require she prove the parties were in a "relationship."  It is, for example, unclear from the opinion whether such a claim would be time-barred.  Footnote seven only states that:

We note M.A. had remedies available to her under the law to seek redress for her injuries, including tort claims against B.F. for assault and battery. 

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

Short take-away: Release by bicycle rider absolved city of liability for injury from pothole

 

The First District has held that under California law a municipality may be absolved of liability by a release signed by a participant in a bicycle ride. (Ty v. White (Feb. 13,2024) A164483.)  The allegation, of course, was that the city failed to maintain the roadway:

Plaintiff Ty Whitehead sued defendant City of Oakland for injuries he suffered after his bicycle hit a pothole during a training ride for the AIDS LifeCycle fundraiser. Prior to the training ride, plaintiff signed an agreement releasing the “owners/lessors of the course or facilities used in the Event” from future liability. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding the release was enforceable. Plaintiff appeals, arguing the release was invalid because it concerned a matter of public interest. (Id., p. 1.)

The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment despite plaintiff's claim the release violated California's Civil Code section 1668,  barring the effect of a release where the transaction implicates the "public interest."  The Ty court rejected this argument, noting that this was not analogous to a release imposed by a charitable hospital, but, rather, involved an activity that was purely voluntary:

In this case, the overall transaction was plaintiff’s signing of a release of liability so that he could participate in the AIDS LifeCycle fundraiser and its organized training rides on defendant’s streets. We cannot, as plaintiff urges, ignore this aspect of this case. Likewise, it cannot reasonably be concluded that a cycling fundraiser is an essential service such that plaintiff was robbed of his free will in deciding whether to sign the release. (Id., p. 12.)

The plaintiff also argued the release was unenforceable because the defendant was grossly negligent and such cannot be waived by a release. The First District, however, found the release was valid because the city's alleged mistakes did not constitute gross negligence, i.e., "there is no evidence that these select mistakes substantially or unreasonably increased the inherent risk of the cycling activity at issue." (Id., p. 20.)

This opinion is of import because it not only reiterates the viability of agreements releasing municipalities from harm, but also because upholding the grant of summary judgment encourages trial courts to give motions for summary judgment and adjudication based on a release serious attention.  A contrary result from the appellate court, finding there were "triable issues" as to the effect of the release and that plaintiff was entitled to proceed to trial, would have discouraged trial courts from ruling a release is valid as a matter of law.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn