The 10 appellate decisions that drew attention in 2024

The Daily Journal's in-house team of lawyers summarizes every published decision from the California Court of Appeal, California Supreme Court, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. To close out the year, we've compiled a list of the most-read opinions by our subscribers online.

People v. Arias

1st District Court of Appeal

David Arias was tried for sexual abuse of a child under 14, and during jury selection, the defense challenged the prosecution's peremptory strike against a Black prospective juror, A.W., under Batson v. Kentucky and People v. Wheeler. The defense argued the strike was racially motivated, while the prosecution cited reasons related to A.W.'s education, awareness of false allegations, and deliberation concerns. The trial court denied the defense's motion without explanation, and Arias was convicted. On appeal, the conviction was reversed because the trial court failed to provide a reasoned evaluation of the prosecution's justifications, which were unsupported or implausible. Excluding a juror based on race constitutes structural error, and the failure to scrutinize the prosecution's rationale required reversal.

In re: Thomas Eugene Creech

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Thomas Eugene Creech, a death row inmate for over 40 years, sought a writ of mandamus to recuse U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford from his suit alleging prosecutorial misconduct during his 2024 clemency hearing. Creech argued that Judge Brailsford's close friendship with prosecutor Jan Bennetts, a key figure in the allegations, created an appearance of bias. Judge Brailsford denied the motion, asserting they had lost touch and that a reasonable person would not perceive her impartiality to be compromised. On appeal, the writ was granted, as the court found the failure to recuse was a clear legal error. The longstanding friendship, coupled with Bennetts' central role in the case and Judge Brailsford's prior praise for Bennetts, reasonably called her impartiality into question. Additionally, the potential for prejudice and lack of alternative relief supported granting the writ.

Grant v. City of Long Beach

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Larry Grant and his daughter filed suit against the City of Long Beach and Gabriele Rodriguez for constitutional violations and state-law claims, but the district court granted summary judgment against them. On appeal, their attorney submitted a brief with factual inaccuracies, misrepresented case law, and citations to two nonexistent cases. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal, citing Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A), which requires accurate contentions and valid legal citations in appellate briefs. The court deemed the deficiencies egregious, striking the brief and dismissing the appeal due to its blatant noncompliance with the rule.

City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP

California Supreme Court

The City of Los Angeles sued PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, over the failed implementation of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's billing system, while simultaneously orchestrating a class action against itself on behalf of overbilled LADWP customers. The class action was settled, and the city sought to recover its costs from PWC. However, during the litigation, the city repeatedly abused the discovery process, falsely asserting privileges to conceal the origin of the class action. After the city dismissed its suit, PWC sought sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030 for the city's misconduct. While the trial court granted sanctions, the decision was reversed on appeal. On review, the reversal was overturned, with the California Supreme Court holding that Section 2023.030 authorizes courts to impose sanctions for egregious discovery misconduct beyond specific methods outlined in the Civil Discovery Act. This interpretation aligned with the Legislature's intent to equip courts with tools to address discovery abuses and ensure efficient case resolution.

Katayama v. Continental Investment Group

4th District Court of Appeal

Takao Katayama sued Continental Group, alleging they failed to disclose key soil analysis information about hazardous substances on a property he purchased. After missing the deadline to respond to requests for admission, Katayama submitted a response denying or admitting the RFAs but included general objections. The trial court deemed the response noncompliant under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220, granted the defendants' motion to deem the RFAs admitted, imposed sanctions, and subsequently entered judgment for the defendants via nonsuit. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding that compliance should focus on whether substantive answers are as complete and straightforward as possible, rather than invalidating responses solely for waived objections. The court emphasized that trial courts should use a graduated enforcement approach, including compelling proper responses or imposing monetary sanctions, instead of barring litigation altogether. The trial court's all-or-nothing ruling was inconsistent with the statute's legislative intent and deprived Katayama of the opportunity to litigate a critical issue.

Downey v. City of Riverside

California Supreme Court

Jayde Downey sued multiple defendants for negligent infliction of emotional distress after witnessing the aftermath of a car accident that severely injured her daughter, Malyah Vance, while on the phone with her. Downey alleged that untrimmed vegetation on private property and defective traffic infrastructure created a dangerous condition contributing to the crash. The trial court dismissed her claims, ruling that she failed to show contemporaneous awareness of the injury-causing event and its connection to the defendants' actions. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, clarifying that California law does not require a plaintiff to be aware of how defendants contributed to an injury to claim negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court emphasized that emotional distress remains foreseeable even if the plaintiff does not immediately understand all the contributing factors to the event witnessed.

People v. Paul

2nd District Court of Appeal

Los Angeles Police Officers Charles Kumlander and Helmkamp approached Jeremiah Paul's parked car late at night, standing on either side and shining flashlights into the vehicle while Paul was on the phone. Kumlander asked if Paul was on parole, and after Paul confirmed, a search of his car revealed a firearm. The trial court denied Paul's motion to suppress the evidence, ruling the encounter was consensual. Paul pleaded no contest to firearm possession with a prior violent conviction but appealed, arguing the encounter was not consensual. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the encounter unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. The court determined that the officers' actions, including standing close to the car doors and shining flashlights into the vehicle, created an objective display of authority, making it unreasonable for Paul to decline the interaction without feeling restrained.

People v. Flores

California Supreme Court

In May 2019, Officer Daniel Guy and his partner detained and searched Marlon Flores after observing him in a "known narcotics area," standing near a car parked in a red zone. When Flores saw the officers, he ducked out of sight and appeared to tie his shoe as they approached. The officers handcuffed and searched Flores and his car, discovering methamphetamine and a revolver. The trial court denied Flores's motion to suppress, citing his suspicious behavior as grounds for reasonable suspicion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. However, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the detention violated Flores's Fourth Amendment rights. The court emphasized that mere presence in a high-crime area, odd behavior, or refusal to cooperate does not establish reasonable suspicion without additional objective evidence of criminal activity. Given the lack of specific facts suggesting criminal conduct, the detention was deemed unlawful.

Bonds v. Superior Court (People)

4th District Court of Appeal

Tommy Bonds, a Black man, was stopped by San Diego Police Officer Ryan Cameron and subsequently arrested for a misdemeanor concealed firearm violation. Bonds alleged that the stop was racially motivated and presented expert testimony on systemic racial bias within the SDPD and analysis of bodycam footage consistent with such bias. Officer Cameron claimed he was unaware of Bonds's race at the time of the stop, and the trial court accepted his testimony as credible, finding no evidence of racial bias. However, Bonds filed a writ petition, which was granted. The appellate court clarified that under California's Racial Justice Act (RJA), relief can be granted based on implied or unintentional bias, not just intentional discrimination. The trial court erred by focusing solely on Cameron's testimony and failing to address broader evidence suggesting implicit racial bias in the stop. The case was remanded for further consideration.

People v. SanMiguel

2nd District Court of Appeal

Jose SanMiguel was charged with premeditated attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. During jury selection, the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike a prospective juror, S.M., who had a Hispanic surname, prompting SanMiguel's counsel to object under Code of Civil Procedure Section 231.7. The prosecutor justified the strike by citing S.M.'s brief responses, inattentiveness, and demeanor, which the trial court confirmed based on its own observations. The court denied the objection, and SanMiguel was convicted. On appeal, the conviction was affirmed. The court held that under Section 231.7, while reasons such as inattentiveness or problematic demeanor are presumptively invalid, they are permissible if corroborated by the court's observations and deemed relevant to the case. Here, S.M.'s behavior raised legitimate concerns about his ability to remain fair and impartial, and there was no evidence suggesting the strike was motivated by bias.