CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL 

Employment

Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2023 WL 5543525: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a motion to intervene as a matter of right in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) action in Sonoma County, under Code of Civil Procedure, section 387, by Tom Piplack and Brianna Marie Taylor, who were lead plaintiffs in representative PAGA actions in Orange and Los Angeles Counties against defendant because Piplack and Taylor failed to bear their burden of proving inadequate representation or potential impairment of their protectable interests. However, the Court of Appeal concluded that the denial of permissive intervention was an abuse of discretion. Had the trial court found an interest sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirement for intervention, as the Court of Appeal concluded it should have, the permissive intervention standard does not require a showing of inadequate representation, which was the stumbling block Piplack and Taylor failed to overcome for mandatory intervention. The order denying intervention was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings. (C.A. 1st, August 29, 2023.)

Cruz v. City of Merced (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2023 WL 5949217: The Court of Appeal reversed in part, and affirmed in part, the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s challenge to the decision of the City Manager of respondent to terminate petitioner from the police force, even though the personnel board (Board) had determined, in an appeal of petitioner’s initial termination, that respondent failed to show petitioner had submitted a false police report or had conducted an illegal search, but concluded that petitioner was not truthful in explaining certain details concerning the search and recommended that petitioner be demoted without backpay instead of terminated. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court prejudicially erred in applying collateral estoppel to conclusively establish the illegality of petitioner’s search, and concluded there was insufficient evidence that petitioner omitted material facts in his police report. However, the Court of Appeal concluded that substantial evidence supported trial court’s determination that petitioner’s court testimony was untruthful. The case was remanded to the trial court for it to determine, in its independent judgment, whether the surviving charges were insufficient to support petitioner’s termination. (C.A. 5th, filed August 23, 2023, published September 13, 2023.)

Insurance

Infinity Select Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2023 WL 5031130: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition ordering the trial court to vacate its rulings that reformed the policy issued by petitioners to increase the policy limit to $750,000, and instead enter a new ruling declaring petitioners’ policy limit was $50,000. Plaintiffs argued it was unlawful for defendants/petitioners (defendants) to issue a policy with a $50,000 limit because the insured, as a motor carrier of property, was required by the Motor Carriers of Property Permit Act (MCPPA) (Veh. Code, § 34600 et seq.) to have a minimum of $750,000 in coverage. In the trial court plaintiffs were suing defendants for bad faith. Plaintiffs previously sued defendant’s insured and his employee for injuries suffered in a three-vehicle collision. The parties in that case, as well as defendants, settled that case with an agreement that the plaintiffs’ damages from the collision totaled $3,565,995.23, plaintiffs were assigned the claims of the insured and his employer against defendants for bad faith refusal to settle, and plaintiffs could sue defendants to establish liability for damages in excess of the stated $50,000 policy limits without having to first obtain a judgment against the insured and his employee. The Court of Appeal granted the writ petition, ruling that under the undisputed facts an insurer that issues an insurance policy to a motor carrier of property is not required to provide coverage in the amount of $750,000. The motor carrier of property—not the insurer—bears ultimate responsibility for meeting the requirements necessary to obtain a motor carrier permit. Because a motor carrier of property can meet its insurance obligation with several policies, even where an insurer intends to issue and certify a policy under Vehicle Code section 34631.5, it is not obligated to issue the policy in the full amount of $750,000. The carrier was not required to confirm whether the motor carrier of property had complied with its financial responsibility obligations. (C.A. 5th, August 8,2023.)

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT 

Corporations

Turner v. Victoria (2023) _ Cal.5th _ , 2023 WL 4939730: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision affirming the trial court’s order sustaining defendants’ demurrer, without leave to amend, to plaintiff’s complaint alleging causes of action under Corporations Code sections 5142, 5233, 5223, and 5710. The trial court and Court of Appeal concluded that plaintiff no longer had standing to bring her action because, at the time that she filed the complaint, plaintiff was no longer a director of the Conrad Prebys Foundation. The California Supreme Court disagreed, concluding an examination of the statutory text, its surrounding context, the legislative history, and the overarching purpose of the director enforcement statutes revealed that the statutes do not impose a continuous directorship requirement that would require dismissal of a lawsuit brought under these statutes if the director-plaintiff failed to retain a director position. Each statute grants a director standing to bring a lawsuit. None expressly requires continued service as a director as a condition for pursuing the lawsuit, and there is no indication that the Legislature intended to impose such a condition. (August 3, 2023.)