Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law
automatic /
October 29, 2026
The Ninth Circuit kept SB 399 preliminarily enjoined because the employer political- and religious-meeting law is likely a content-based speech restriction that fails strict scrutiny.
1st District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Family Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 28, 2026
The Court of Appeal reversed a $39,000 attorney fee award under Family Code section 6344 because the fee motion was filed 14 months after a stipulated domestic violence restraining order, well beyond the deadline in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702.
1st District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Litigation
automatic /
October 28, 2026
The First District, Division Four, affirmed a $27,625 section 1021.5 fee award to a real party in interest and cost awards in a Measure Y validation action, holding in the published part that electronic service of notice of entry of judgment adds two court days to the 30-day fee motion deadline.
1st District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 28, 2026
People v. Northington: premature juror excusal requires a new trial and assault acquittal.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Administrative Law, Environmental Law
automatic /
October 28, 2026
Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Reclamation: contract conversions require no separate NEPA or ESA review.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 27, 2026
People v. Bray: trial courts need an applicable sentencing-law change to recall a sentence.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law
automatic /
October 27, 2026
The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court's order compelling the City of Torrance to produce documents related to its individualized assessments of job applicants with criminal histories, holding that by asserting compliance with the Fair Chance Act as a defense to the Civil Rights Department's investigation, the City waived any attorney-client and work product privilege claims over the underlying assessment documents.
3rd District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The Third District reversed the judgment for sentencing purposes and ordered a full resentencing. The upper term could not rest on aggravating findings that duplicated elements of the crimes or the firearm enhancement, and the relevant danger-to-society finding required a comparison showing that the manner of committing the offense was distinctively worse than other ways the crime could be committed. The record and findings did not provide a valid, harmless foundation for the sentence imposed.
4th District Court of Appeal, Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The Fourth District reversed and directed issuance of a writ requiring payment. Nothing in the collective bargaining agreement limited the retroactive increases or stipends to employees who remained on staff when the board approved the deal. The benefits were tied to service during the covered school year, and the former teachers had performed that work. Reading an unwritten continuing-employment condition into the agreement would create unequal compensation among equally qualified teachers for the same period of service.
California Supreme Court, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Court of Appeal and held that section 417.3 requires objective fear only. The statutory words focus on the way the firearm is displayed and ask whether that conduct would cause a reasonable person apprehension or fear. They do not say that the identified victim must actually have experienced fear. The Legislature has expressly required actual, reasonable fear in other crimes, including the criminal-threats statute, and its omission of comparable language here was meaningful.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Election Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
A divided Ninth Circuit panel dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied the emergency motion as moot. Ordinarily, an appellate court reviews an order granting or denying an injunction, not a request the trial court is still actively considering. The narrow constructive-denial doctrine can treat inaction as appealable when delay effectively refuses urgently needed relief and creates imminent, severe, irreparable consequences. Those conditions were not met here.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The panel granted a stay to the extent the district court’s orders prevented Berkeley from clearing and abating the Harrison encampment. Public-health evidence showed that leaving tents and vehicles in place could shelter rats and interfere with eradication measures. That created a serious risk to residents, workers, and the public, and justified allowing the city to complete work at that location while appellate review continued.
1st District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The court affirmed. The jury was instructed that first degree murder required a deliberate decision to kill—careful weighing of considerations and a knowing choice—not a rash, impulsive decision made without careful thought. By returning that verdict, the jury necessarily rejected the state of mind that would support heat of passion: intense emotion obscuring reason and causing action without due deliberation and reflection.
1st District Court of Appeal, Administrative Law, Personal Injury & Tort
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The First District reversed. Section 820.2 protects a public employee’s qualifying discretionary policy decisions, but it does not confer blanket immunity on every act connected to a program that involves judgment. Immunity requires a considered exercise of discretion at the policy level. Routine implementation, investigation, supervision, and response duties may include ministerial conduct outside that protection.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Business Transactions, Labor & Employment Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The Second District affirmed and held that FEHA does not alter the common-law presumption of corporate separateness. FEHA contains no provision addressing alter ego liability or judgment enforcement, much less the clear and unequivocal statement courts expect before concluding that legislation displaced a settled common-law rule. The direction to construe FEHA liberally and provide effective remedies was not enough to create a new presumption.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The Second District affirmed. A defendant is statutorily entitled to make a suppression motion at the preliminary hearing, and that motion is part of the hearing that section 859b requires to occur within its specified time. The prosecution could not preserve the complaint by separating the evidentiary issue from the preliminary hearing and postponing it beyond the deadline over the defendant’s objection.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law
automatic /
October 23, 2026
The Ninth Circuit denied Defendants' motion to voluntarily dismiss the fully briefed appeal of the initial federalization injunction, finding the appeal not moot and that dismissal would allow strategic manipulation of precedent, while granting dismissal of the unbriefed extension appeal.
5th District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 23, 2026
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Belkorp's motion to compel arbitration, holding that an aggrieved employee may bring a PAGA action consisting solely of nonindividual claims without also asserting individual claims.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law
automatic /
October 23, 2026
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order, reviewable as a preliminary injunction, that bars deployment of the federalized California National Guard in Los Angeles because neither 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) nor § 12406(2) likely authorized the President's June 2025 federalization order.
1st District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 23, 2026
A prevailing FEHA defendant cannot recover ordinary litigation costs without a proper motion and an express finding that the employee’s case was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Administrative Law, Immigration
automatic /
October 23, 2026
In a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit granted a bisexual Russian man's petition for review and remanded because the immigration judge misunderstood bisexuality and failed to give statutory notice and an opportunity to corroborate.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Real Estate Law
automatic /
October 23, 2026
The Court of Appeal reversed a judgment entered after a demurrer, holding that a homeowner who alleges a city failed to ministerially approve his ADU permit has satisfied the protective-purpose element of a Government Code section 815.6 claim.
5th District Court of Appeal, Constitutional Law, Construction Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 22, 2026
The Fifth District held that a bond-funded school lease-leaseback did not qualify for the Education Code section 17406 bidding exception, rejected the Government Code section 1090 conflict claim, and directed a modified judgment requiring the contractor to return $236,129 in net profit.
4th District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 22, 2026
The Fourth District reversed. Section 11358(d) states that qualifying cultivation conduct is punishable by imprisonment under Penal Code section 1170(h). Section 1170(h)(4), in turn, expressly provides that nothing in that subdivision prevents a court from granting probation or suspending sentence, or a defendant from seeking relief under section 17(b). Reading those provisions together makes a subdivision (d) offense eligible for treatment as a misdemeanor.
4th District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Family Law
automatic /
October 22, 2026
The Fourth District affirmed. Section 1218 and Family Code section 271 address different conduct and serve different purposes. Section 1218 permits a successful contempt movant to recover fees but does not create a reciprocal award for the alleged contemner. Section 271, by contrast, is a family-law sanction designed to encourage cooperation, settlement, and proportionate litigation. Applying section 271 to conduct occurring during contempt proceedings does not convert section 1218 into a reciprocal fee statute.