Skip to main content

California Law Update – April 2025

By April 30, 2025August 23rd, 2025Law Updates
    1. (Judicial Behavior) Judge’s erroneous and prejudicial evidentiary rulings-coupled with “bizarre,” irrelevant personal musings about society and race-warranted a new trial. Sabrena Odom v. Los Angeles Community College District (No. B327997 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC724401 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Eight Filed April 7, 2025)
    2. (Peremptory Challenges) Sustained objection under Code of Civil Procedure Section 231.7, which prohibits peremptory challenges based on prospective juror’s race, raises mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review. The People v. Robert Hinojos (No. B325167 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA457195 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Seven Filed April 8, 2025)
    3. (Sealing of Record) Requests to seal civil harassment records were properly denied when defendant failed to meet California Rules of Court requirements for sealing records. Lawrence Marino v. Mark Alon Rayant (No. B337874 Los Angeles County Super Ct. No. 22STRO06089 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division One Filed April 18, 2025, Certification and Order for Publication)
    4. (Release of Liability) Because a signed release unequivocally released Defendants from all liability resulting from any injury related to the event, Plaintiff’s injuries resulting from a third-party altercation were covered by the release. Zackary Diamond v. Scott Schweitzer (No. F086150 Super. Ct. No. BCV-20-100707 California Court of Appeal Fifth Appellate District Filed April 21, 2025)
    5. (Contractual Release by Employer) Despite contract between defendants and plaintiff’s employer that allegedly relieved defendants from liability for negligent acts, summary judgment was not appropriate where employee-plaintiff had not signed the contract. Myranda Isabella De La Cruz v. Mission Hills Shopping Center, LLC (No. B333182 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV28647 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Eight Filed April 28, 2025)

The above court decisions came to our attention during this last month. Please find below a summary of the court opinions for your consideration.

    1. (Judicial Behavior) Judge’s erroneous and prejudicial evidentiary rulings-coupled with “bizarre,” irrelevant personal musings about society and race-warranted a new trial. Sabrena Odom v. Los Angeles Community College District (No. B327997 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC724401 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Eight Filed April 7, 2025)

This matter involved an appeal from a judgment on a jury verdict awarding millions of dollars to the plaintiff on her claim for sexual harassment, retaliation and related claims. The appeals court reversed the judgment, not for lack of substantial evidence, but for prejudicial errors in the admission of irrelevant and damaging “me-too” evidence from a witness who was not similarly situated to plaintiff, and for the equally prejudicial and erroneous admission of 20-year-old newspaper articles and other evidence of the alleged harasser’s misdemeanor convictions.

The appeals court noted that this was an unusual case, due to the significant arbitrary and prejudicial evidence rulings of the judge presiding over the trial.

After the judgment was entered, defendants filed motions for a new trial and for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict. At the hearing on those motions, which were denied, the trial judge initiated extended, bizarre personal comments on the racial matters with newly substituted defense counsel, despite there being no racial issue of any kind in the case. Defendants filed a motion to disqualify the judge for cause and to void his rulings on the motions. After writ proceedings and referral to a neutral judge, the trial judge was disqualified in his rulings on the post judgment motions were voided.

In this appeal from the judgment, the appeals court did not need to determine whether the trial judge’s prejudicially erroneous evidentiary rulings during trial were motivated, in part, as defendant contended, by “persistent racial and gender bias.” The appeals court found that the judge’s rulings were motivated by personal opinions untethered to the rules of evidence. Whatever the motivations may have been, the judge admitted inflammatory evidence without consideration of the evidentiary rules, with undeniable prejudicial effect, thus preventing a fair trial. Accordingly, the appeals court reversed the judgment. The trial judge was the Honorable Robert S. Draper, Los Angeles County Superior Court.

    1. (Peremptory Challenges) Sustained objection under Code of Civil Procedure Section 231.7, which prohibits peremptory challenges based on prospective juror’s race, raises mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review. The People v. Robert Hinojos (No. B325167 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA457195 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Seven Filed April 8, 2025)

Plaintiff appealed from a conviction after a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder. On appeal, the plaintiff contended the trial court erred in sustaining the prosecution’s objection under Code of Civil Procedure 231.7, which provides a statutory prohibition to a party’s use of a peremptory challenge based on prospective juror’s race or perceived race. As a matter of first impression, the appeals court determined the trial court’s sustaining of a section 231.7 objection raised a mixed question of law and fact, which the appeals court reviews de novo, deferring to factual findings if supported by substantial evidence. Applying that standard, the appeals court concluded the trial court did not err.

In the trial below, the court sustained the prosecutor’s section 231.7 objection and determined that race, ethnicity, or national origin bore on the facts of the case because it revolved around Mexican Mafia membership. The appeals court found that trial court correctly concluded that there was “more than a mere possibility” an objectively reasonable person would view race as a factor in the decision to challenge a prospective juror.

    1. (Sealing of Record) Requests to seal civil harassment records were properly denied when defendant failed to meet California Rules of Court requirements for sealing records. Lawrence Marino v. Mark Alon Rayant (No. B337874 Los Angeles County Super Ct. No. 22STRO06089 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division One Filed April 18, 2025, Certification and Order for Publication)

Plaintiff obtained a civil harassment restraining order against the defendant in a proceeding where the defendant was not present. The defendant later appeared, arguing he had not received notice of the plaintiff’s restraining order request, and the request was without merit. The trial court terminated the restraining order.

Defendant then moved to seal the entire record of the restraining order proceedings, citing background checks as he applied for jobs and subjected him to increased scrutiny by airport authorities when returning from international travel. The trial court denied the sealing request because the defendant had not made the necessary showing for sealing under California Rules of Court. The defendant appealed the order. The defendant contended there was no federal constitutional right of public access to records of restraining order proceedings, therefore the court rules for sealings records, which are based on federal constitutional requirements as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, are inapplicable. Although the sealing rules are based on federal constitutional principles, the appeals court noted that they provided independent, statutory right of public access to court records. The unambiguous language of those rules created a broad presumption of public access to all superior court records with only limited exceptions. None of those exceptions applied to this case. The trial court did not err in finding that the defendant had not met its high bar for sealing imposed by those rules. The appeals court therefore affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

    1. (Release of Liability) Because a signed release unequivocally released Defendants from all liability resulting from any injury related to the event, Plaintiff’s injuries resulting from a third-party altercation were covered by the release. Zackary Diamond v. Scott Schweitzer (No. F086150 Super. Ct. No. BCV-20-100707 California Court of Appeal Fifth Appellate District Filed April 21, 2025)

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment entered after the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendants. Plaintiff suffered injuries from a punch inflicted by a third party during an altercation in the restricted pit area at the defendant’s speedway. Plaintiff alleged defendants were negligent in failing to provide reasonable security, adequately responding to the altercation, and undertaking reasonable rescue efforts. Defendants moved for summary judgement, asserting plaintiff’s negligence claims were barred by the release and waiver of liability form he signed to gain admission to the pit area. The trial court granted the motion, concluding the release’s language was clear, unequivocal, broad in scope, and included the negligent conduct alleged in this case. The court interpreted the release as including risks arising out of or related to racing activities. It concluded the assault was such a risk and, thus, was the type of event anticipated and covered by the release.

The appeals court affirmed finding that the requirements for an enforceable release had been met: (1) the release contains clear, unambiguous and explicit expression of the parties’ intent to release all liability for plaintiff’s injury; (2) the alleged acts of negligence resulting in the injury are reasonably related to the objection or purpose for which the release was given; and (3) the release does not contravene public policy. The appeals court further concluded that (4) the defendant’s adequately raised a complete defense based on the signed release of liability to all theories of negligence alleged in the complaint, and (5) plaintiff failed to rebut that defense in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

    1. (Contractual Release by Employer) Despite contract between defendants and plaintiff’s employer that allegedly relieved defendants from liability for negligent acts, summary judgment was not appropriate where employee-plaintiff had not signed the contract. Myranda Isabella De La Cruz v. Mission Hills Shopping Center, LLC (No. B333182 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV28647 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Eight Filed April 28, 2025)

Plaintiff tripped on a pothole in defendant shopping center parking lot. A third-party entity managed the shopping center. The plaintiff sued the shopping center and the shopping center moved for summary judgment in the tort case on the basis of a contract. The contract was between the shopping center and the plaintiff’s employer, which was a tenant in the shopping center. The contract contained an exculpatory clause that relieved the defendant shopping center from any liability for negligent or wrongful acts. The motion did not explain why the plaintiff would be bound by a contract she did not sign. Notwithstanding, the trial court granted summary judgment.

The appeals court reversed noting that an individual or party must agree to a contract to be bound by it. Here, it was the shopping center’s burden on summary judgment to explain why its motion had a legal basis. The defendant failed to offer a winning theory, and the court erred in granting the motion. The appeals court reached this conclusion on independent review. The defendant shopping center asserted that the plaintiff forfeited this argument by failing to present it to the trial court. The plaintiff’s opposition to the defendant’s motion did not mention the parties to the contract excluded her. The appeals court noted that it has discretion to considered forfeited claims. It exercised this discretion with considerable reluctance, for the forfeiture rule rests on sound principles. But this legal error was found to be foundational, because contracts require assent. While the shopping center argued that the question might involve factual issues, that is was conceivable that the plaintiff might have contracted with her tenant employer to incorporate the contract between the employer and the shopping center this information was not included within the moving papers of the shopping center and thus, it was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Should you have any questions concerning these court decisions or desire a copy of any of them, please do not hesitate to contact our office.