Justices of the Second Appellate District Who Hear Appeals From Los Angeles County

Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 864 Consumer protection / Song-Beverly Act / lemon law repurchase offers

The court affirmed summary judgment for a vehicle manufacturer on a lessee's Song-Beverly Act (lemon law) claims, holding that the manufacturer's prelitigation offer to repurchase the vehicle was prompt, correctly calculated the statutory mileage offset, and could lawfully be conditioned on the consumer's agreement to keep the offer's financial terms confidential.

Justice Adams dissented. Majority by Presiding Justice Edmon (assigned Los Angeles Superior Court judge); Justice Hanasono concurred. Read the full opinion

Cash v. County of Los Angeles (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 741 Civil procedure / attorney fee awards / standard of review

The court affirmed the trial court's 30-percent across-the-board reduction of an attorney fee award, declining to apply the 'heightened scrutiny' standard some California courts have imported from federal civil-rights fee-shifting cases and holding that a trial court's general finding of billing padding and duplicative work is sufficient to support an across-the-board percentage cut under the traditional abuse-of-discretion standard.

Justice Baker dissented. Majority by Presiding Justice Hoffstadt; Justice Dorothy C. Kim concurred. Justice Lamar W. Baker dissented, arguing heightened scrutiny of across-the-board fee reductions is warranted and the trial court's sparse justification for its 30-percent cut did not permit meaningful appellate review. California Supreme Court granted review August 20, 2025 (S291827); pending. Read the full opinion

Bidari v. Kelk (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1152 Civil procedure / malicious prosecution / leave to amend

The court affirmed a judgment dismissing a malicious prosecution suit, holding that a warrantless arrest and the resulting law-enforcement investigation, without some adjudicatory involvement by a court, cannot support a malicious prosecution claim, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend to add an abuse-of-process claim or to revive previously dismissed defamation, negligence, and emotional-distress claims.

Justice Bendix concurred in part and dissented in part. Majority by Presiding Justice Rothschild; Justice Chaney concurred. Justice Bendix concurred in the malicious prosecution ruling but dissented from the denial of leave to amend to revive the plaintiffs' previously dismissed claims. Read the full opinion

Hoso Foods, Inc. v. Columbus Club, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 881 Arbitration / arbitrator's authority / corporate representation

The court reversed the trial court's confirmation of a $1.2 million arbitration award in a commercial lease dispute, holding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 by limiting the corporate defendant's representation at the hearing to a single individual who lacked knowledge of the underlying lease negotiations, thereby depriving the defendant of a fair hearing.

Justice Chavez dissented. Majority by Justice Doi Todd; Presiding Justice Boren concurred. Read the full opinion

People v. Clayton (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 145 Criminal / felony-murder resentencing / section 1170.95

The court reversed the denial of a murder-resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1170.95 and directed the superior court to vacate the conviction and proceed immediately to resentencing, holding that the jury's unanimous rejection of the felony-murder special-circumstance allegation constituted a prior finding that the defendant was not a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life, thus triggering the mandatory relief provision of subdivision (d)(2).

Justice Chavez dissented. Majority by Justice Ashmann-Gerst; Presiding Justice Lui concurred. Read the full opinion

Ward v. Tilly's, Inc. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 1167 Wage and hour / reporting time pay

The court held that a retail employer's on-call scheduling practice, under which employees had to telephone the store two hours before an on-call shift to learn whether they were needed, triggered the reporting-time-pay requirement of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7, and it reversed the dismissal of the employee's class complaint.

Justice Egerton concurred in part and dissented in part. Majority opinion by Presiding Justice Edmon, joined by Justice Dhanidina. Read the full opinion

Stone v. Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 608 Premises liability / landlord's duty to inspect

The court held that a commercial landlord that had obtained a judgment of possession against a defaulting restaurant tenant owed a duty to make reasonable periodic inspections of the premises from the entry of that judgment, and because the jury had not been instructed on that duty it reversed the judgment for a guest injured in a fall at the restaurant and remanded for a retrial of liability only, leaving the damages findings in place.

Justice Egerton dissented. Then a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Justice Egerton sat on the Division Eight panel by assignment of the Chief Justice. Majority opinion by Justice Rubin, joined by Presiding Justice Cooper. Read the full opinion

In re O.M. (unpublished; 2026) Docket No. B345321 Juvenile dependency / ICWA inquiry Unpublished

In a juvenile dependency appeal, the court affirmed orders terminating both parents' rights to their son, holding that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services satisfied its inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act and California law. The court reasoned that Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b), does not require an agency to interview every living extended family member, only those known and reasonably available, and that the Department had inquired of both parents, all four grandparents, a maternal uncle, and a paternal step-grandmother, each of whom denied Indian ancestry.

Justice Feuer dissented. Majority authored by Presiding Justice Martinez; Justice Stone concurred. Justice Feuer agreed with the majority's statement of the governing ICWA standards but dissented, concluding the Department made no good-faith effort to reach the mother's siblings Sydney and Josh during the 18 months the child was removed, that both were reasonably available and neither appeared in the agency's ICWA status chart, and that she would conditionally reverse for further inquiry. Read the full opinion

Unpublished — not certified for publication in the Official Reports. Under California Rule of Court 8.1115, an unpublished opinion may not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action; it is included here only as a record of the dissenting justice's reasoning, not as authority.

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499 Sentencing / equal protection

The court affirmed the denial of a petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), by a defendant who committed murder at age 15 and was sentenced to 50 years to life. It held that the statute's plain language limits eligibility to juvenile offenders sentenced to an explicit term of life without the possibility of parole, that a 50-years-to-life sentence is not the functional equivalent of such a term because the defendant will have a realistic opportunity for release within his expected lifetime, and that where to draw the line for resentencing eligibility is a question for the Legislature.

Justice Feuer dissented. Majority authored by Acting Presiding Justice Segal; Justice Stone concurred. Justice Feuer dissented, concluding that a sentence of 50 or more years to life is the functional equivalent of life without parole and that excluding such offenders from section 1170(d)(1) relief has no rational basis. California Supreme Court granted review June 25, 2025 (S290828); pending, with briefing deferred in People v. Isayev (S292860), People v. Ortega (S292070), and People v. Lara (S294095). Because review is pending, the opinion has no binding precedential effect under Rule of Court 8.1115(e). Note: the official_url points at the court's /revpub/ directory, which the opinion will leave once the Supreme Court rules. Read the full opinion

People v. Salinas (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 20 Criminal procedure / Batson-Wheeler / peremptory challenges

The court reversed a second-degree murder conviction and remanded for retrial, holding that the trial court did not make a sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the prosecution's stated reason for using a peremptory challenge to strike a Black female prospective juror, and that the court's own independent review of the record showed the strike was more likely than not motivated by race in violation of Batson v. Kentucky and People v. Wheeler.

Justice Kim dissented. Majority by Justice Baker; Presiding Justice Rubin concurred. Justice Dorothy C. Kim dissented, concluding the trial court's credibility finding on the prosecutor's race-neutral explanation was entitled to deference and she would have affirmed the judgment. Read the full opinion

In re T.F.P. (unpublished; 2022) Docket No. B318437 Juvenile dependency / ICWA inquiry / harmless error Unpublished

In a juvenile dependency appeal, the court affirmed the order terminating both parents' rights to their son and held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The lead opinion acknowledged that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services had not asked the family's extended relatives about possible Indian ancestry as Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b), requires, but concluded the omission was not prejudicial: the same juvenile court had earlier found no reason to know that the child's two full siblings were Indian children in cases that overlapped with and shared a case number with this one, and both parents had repeatedly denied Native American heritage.

Justice Moor dissented. Lead opinion by Presiding Justice Rubin. Justice Baker concurred separately, agreeing the order should be affirmed but expressly declining the harmlessness ground and resting instead on substantial evidence supporting the ICWA finding; the court issued an order modifying the opinion on October 20, 2022 to attribute the holding to the lead opinion together with Justice Baker's concurrence rather than to the lead opinion alone, with no change in judgment. Justice Moor dissented, concluding the ICWA finding was prejudicial error and that he would conditionally reverse and remand for compliance with ICWA; he reasoned that the earlier sibling findings rested on pre-2019 law and could not carry the harmlessness analysis because the Legislature amended sections 224.2 and 224.3 effective January 1, 2019 to require inquiry of extended family members. The mirrored PDF contains the October 20, 2022 modification order followed by the unmodified October 17, 2022 opinion. Read the full opinion

Unpublished — not certified for publication in the Official Reports. Under California Rule of Court 8.1115, an unpublished opinion may not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action; it is included here only as a record of the dissenting justice's reasoning, not as authority.

Owens v. Menzies Aviation (USA), Inc. (unpublished; 2024) Docket No. B324385 Civil procedure / timeliness of appeal / notice of entry Unpublished

Menzies Aviation appealed two trial-court rulings in an employment-arbitration dispute: a May 2022 order lifting a stay on litigation because Menzies had missed a statutory deadline to pay arbitration fees, and an August 2022 order denying Menzies' motion styled as reconsideration or, alternatively, a renewed motion to compel arbitration. The court held the only appealable order was the May 2022 stay ruling, and that Menzies' October 2022 notice of appeal came too late to challenge it because the clerk's mailed minute order, together with a separately file-stamped certificate of mailing, satisfied the requirement that triggers the shorter appeal deadline; the appeal was dismissed as untimely.

Justice Moor dissented. Majority authored by Justice Baker, Acting Presiding Justice; Justice Dorothy C. Kim concurred. Justice Moor dissented, reasoning that under Alan v. American Honda Motor Co. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 894, the trial court clerk's mailing did not satisfy the single-document requirement for shortening the appeal deadline because the minute order itself was not file-stamped (only the separate certificate of mailing was), so the longer 180-day deadline applied and Menzies' notice of appeal was timely. Read the full opinion

Unpublished — not certified for publication in the Official Reports. Under California Rule of Court 8.1115, an unpublished opinion may not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action; it is included here only as a record of the dissenting justice's reasoning, not as authority.

Vehling v. Regents of the University of California (unpublished; 2025) Docket No. B331965 Civil procedure / standing to appeal / aggrievement Unpublished

A former UCLA spirit squad director sought a court order overturning a university disciplinary finding that she had violated UCLA's sexual harassment policy, after the trial court had already ruled that no substantial evidence supported that finding but denied her petition anyway because other, separately supported misconduct findings independently justified her termination. Because she did not contest her termination itself, only the harassment finding, the court held she was not 'aggrieved' within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 902 and therefore lacked a justiciable basis to appeal; the appeal was dismissed.

Justice Moor dissented. Majority authored by Justice Baker, Acting Presiding Justice; Justice Dorothy C. Kim concurred. Justice Moor dissented, reasoning that a public employee terminated on a stigmatizing finding is entitled to a due-process 'name-clearing hearing' regardless of the termination's validity, that the plaintiff had properly preserved her challenge to the harassment finding itself, and that the trial court should have granted that portion of her petition and ordered the finding removed from her personnel file while denying the balance of her petition challenging the termination. Read the full opinion

Unpublished — not certified for publication in the Official Reports. Under California Rule of Court 8.1115, an unpublished opinion may not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action; it is included here only as a record of the dissenting justice's reasoning, not as authority.

Anabi Oil Corporation v. Fuel Enterprise, Inc. (unpublished; 2026) Docket No. B337933 Civil procedure / statement of decision / fraud reliance Unpublished

In a commercial dispute over a gas station's fuel-supply agreements, the trial court had ruled largely for the station's new owner on fraud-based cross-claims arising from an allegedly misrepresented supply covenant. The court held the trial court's statement of decision did not clearly resolve whether the owner's reliance on the alleged misrepresentation was reasonable, a distinct element of fraud from actual reliance, and that the objection raised below adequately preserved that omission for appeal. It reversed the fraud-dependent portions of the judgment and the attorney-fee award and remanded for an express finding on reasonable reliance, leaving undisturbed the separate findings that did not depend on the fraud determination.

Justice Richardson concurred in part and dissented in part. Consolidated with appeal No. B340224. Majority authored by Presiding Justice Lui, with Justice Chavez concurring. Justice Richardson agreed the statement of decision failed to resolve whether the reliance was reasonable, but dissented from the majority's holding that the objection below adequately preserved that omission under Code of Civil Procedure section 634; she would have inferred a finding favorable to the prevailing party and affirmed the judgment in full. Read the full opinion

Unpublished — not certified for publication in the Official Reports. Under California Rule of Court 8.1115, an unpublished opinion may not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action; it is included here only as a record of the dissenting justice's reasoning, not as authority.

In re Van Houten (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1 Habeas corpus / parole review / "some evidence" standard

On a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court held the Governor's 2020 reversal of a grant of parole to Leslie Van Houten, convicted of the 1969 Manson-family murders of Leno and Rosemary La Bianca, was not supported by 'some evidence' of current dangerousness, and reinstated the Board of Parole Hearings' grant of parole.

Presiding Justice Rothschild dissented. Majority by Justice Bendix; Justice Chaney concurred. Presiding Justice Rothschild dissented, concluding the record contained some evidence Van Houten lacked insight into the commitment offense. Read the full opinion

Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 49 Negligence / duty of care / Rowland factors

The court reversed summary judgment for the owner, general contractor, and excavation contractor of a downtown Los Angeles construction project in a wrongful-death suit brought after a subcontractor's dump-truck driver, traveling to an unpermitted off-site staging area, struck and killed two children; applying the Rowland factors, the court held the defendants owed a duty of care because establishing the unpermitted staging area, contrary to their excavation permit, foreseeably increased the risk to pedestrians.

Presiding Justice Rothschild dissented. Majority by Justice Bendix; Justice Weingart concurred. Presiding Justice Rothschild dissented, concluding the connection between the unpermitted staging area and the accident, which occurred 14 blocks away as the driver traveled from home, was too attenuated to support a duty of care. Read the full opinion

In re E.R. (unpublished; 2023) Docket No. B316878 Juvenile dependency / physical abuse / substantial evidence / standard of review Unpublished

In a juvenile dependency appeal arising from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the court reversed two of the four jurisdictional bases on which the juvenile court had assumed jurisdiction over E.R., a then-minor whose mother had repeatedly slapped and struck her while struggling, largely unsuccessfully, to stop E.R.’s gang involvement and alcohol abuse. The majority held that the record lacked substantial evidence supporting jurisdiction on physical-abuse grounds (Welf. & Inst. Code § 300, subd. (a)) because no incident occurred after the section 300 petition was filed and the prior slapping, while serious, did not demonstrate a substantial risk of future serious physical harm; it also reversed the medical-neglect count because mother’s failure to participate in recommended family therapy sessions could not have caused harm given that E.R. also refused to participate. The court affirmed the remaining jurisdictional counts based on mother’s inability to curtail E.R.’s risky behaviors and father’s failure to provide care and supervision, and dismissed the dispositional appeal as moot after E.R. turned 18 and the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction.

Justice Weingart concurred in part and dissented in part. Majority by Presiding Justice Rothschild; Justice Bendix concurred. Justice Weingart concurred in all portions except the reversal of the physical-abuse jurisdictional finding, which he would have affirmed on substantial evidence grounds. Read the full opinion

Unpublished — not certified for publication in the Official Reports. Under California Rule of Court 8.1115, an unpublished opinion may not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action; it is included here only as a record of the dissenting justice's reasoning, not as authority.

In re A.V. (unpublished; 2023) Docket No. B316674 Juvenile dependency / ICWA inquiry / harmless error Unpublished

In a juvenile dependency case involving four siblings, the court held the juvenile court erred in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inapplicable, because the Department of Children and Family Services never asked the children's extended maternal and paternal family members about possible Indian ancestry as state law requires. The court nonetheless affirmed the termination of the parents' rights, concluding the error was harmless because both parents personally participated in the proceedings and unequivocally denied any Indian ancestry, and the record gave no reason to believe that denial was uninformed.

Justice Wiley dissented. Majority authored by Judge Albert T. Harutunian of the San Diego Superior Court, sitting by assignment; Acting Presiding Justice Grimes concurred. Justice Wiley dissented, reasoning that the extended-family inquiry required by the 2018 amendment to California's ICWA-implementing statute exists to protect tribes' own interest in notice, independent of what the parents themselves report, so the omitted inquiry could not be deemed harmless; he noted the opinion was his sixteenth dissent on this recurring issue. Read the full opinion

Unpublished — not certified for publication in the Official Reports. Under California Rule of Court 8.1115, an unpublished opinion may not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action; it is included here only as a record of the dissenting justice's reasoning, not as authority.