26 results for 'judge:"Streeter"'.
J. Streeter finds that the trial court properly denied writ relief to a cardroom whose application to expand was denied by the state gambling commission. A local voter-approved measure that would enable the expansion is not exempt from the Gambling Control Act, which requires approval from the commission. Also, the ballot language for the measure did not substantially comply with a requirement for neutral, concise wording. And the commission rightly rejected the cardroom's application because the measure did not comply with statute. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: A168427, Categories: Administrative Law, Elections, Municipal Law
[Modified.] J. Streeter makes three changes to a previously published opinion with no change in judgment. The lower court properly denied defendant’s petition for relief. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted robbery and sentenced to 50 years to life. He was granted a resentencing hearing after a lower court found he was denied counsel, and though the same errors were repeated during the resentencing hearing, the instant court finds them harmless. Evidence is sufficient to support defendant’s convictions and sentence, along with associated enhancements. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: A166001, Categories: Murder, Sentencing, Self Representation
[Modified.] J. Streeter makes three minor modifications and denies a rehearing with no change in judgment. The lower court properly interpreted an inventory claim in this insurance matter, but not the loss of business income. A cannabis business suffered losses after a robbery, and filed a claim with the insurance company for $2.5 million of lost inventory. The inventory was stolen from two vaults, and the business argues it should be two inventory claims with a $600,000 limit for each claim, but the insurance company argues it is one claim with a limit of $600,000. The lower court found the interpretation of a single claim to be correct, and the instant court agrees, but it finds the portion of the claim concerning lost business income may not have been properly calculated, and remands that portion of the matter for further consideration. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: A167491, Categories: Insurance
J. Streeter finds the lower court properly interpreted an inventory claim in this insurance matter, but not the loss of business income. A cannabis business suffered losses after a robbery, and filed a claim with the insurance company for $2.5 million of lost inventory. The inventory was stolen from two vaults, and the business argues it should be two inventory claims with a $600,000 limit for each claim, but the insurance company argues it is one claim with a limit of $600,000. The lower court found the interpretation of a single claim to be correct, and the instant court agrees; but it finds the portion of the claim concerning lost business income may not have been properly calculated, and remands that portion of the matter for further consideration. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: A167491, Categories: Insurance
J. Streeter finds the lower court properly denied defendant’s petition for relief. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted robbery and sentenced to 50 years to life. He was granted a resentencing hearing after a lower court found he was denied counsel, and though the same errors were repeated during the resentencing hearing, the instant court finds them harmless. Evidence is sufficient to support defendant’s convictions and sentence, along with associated enhancements. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: A166001, Categories: Murder, Sentencing, Self Representation
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
[Modified.] J. Streeter makes two minor wording changes with no change in judgment. One of nine claims defendant made in his kidnapping, robbery and murder case, which led to a death sentence, is entitled to a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists could find that the trial court improperly excused a juror who said she was "neutral" on the death penalty and said she did not want to make a life-or-death decision, but did not say she could not impose the death penalty. Also, the statutory 10-day deadline for granting or denying requests for certificates of appealability is directory, not mandatory. A substantial claim to relief is strong enough for a certificate to issue if jurists could debate whether the trial court erred. And a request must come with a record that is adequate for appellate review.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: A169146, Categories: Death Penalty, Habeas, Murder
J. Streeter issues a certificate of appealability on one of nine claims defendant made in his kidnapping, robbery and murder case, which led to a death sentence. Reasonable jurists could find that the trial court improperly excused a juror who said she was "neutral" on the death penalty and said she did not want to make a life-or-death decsion, but did not say she could not impose the death penalty. Also, the statutory 10-day deadline for granting or denying requests for certficates of appealability is directory, not mandatory. A substantial claim to relief is strong enough for a certificate to issue if jurists could debate whether the trial court erred. And a request must come with a record that is adequate for appellate review.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: A169146, Categories: Death Penalty, Habeas, Murder
J. Streeter holds that the juvenile court had jurisdiction to modify a juvenile's commitment for attempted murder to a maximum term of confinement of 22-years-to-life. The juvenile court met the requirements for good cause and was making a diligent effort to comply with a new statute. Also, the juvenile's equal protection rights were not violated by the juvenile court's refusal to apply his precommitment credits to his baseline term. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: A166408, Categories: Juvenile Law, Murder, Sentencing
[Modified.] J. Streeter deletes a citation and fixes a typo with no change in judgment. The trial court failed to provide defendant with an opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to have a jury determine if he should be recommitted for another year as a violent offender with a mental health disorder. The record must show that a defendant subject to commitment demonstrated an understanding of how a jury operates, the significance of a jury trial and the consequences of waiver.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: A166084, Categories: Competence, Jury, Assault
[Modified.] J. Streeter corrects a clerical error with no change in judgment. The trial court should have granted an anti-SLAPP motion filed in response to a malicious prosecution complaint. The record shows that a factual dispute over whether the use of a driveway was an easement or a license created probable cause to support the underlying breach of contract claim, so the malicious prosecution complaint was unlikely to succeed. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: A164867M, Categories: Anti-slapp, Malicious Prosecution, Property
J. Streeter finds that the trial court failed to provide defendant with an opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to have a jury determine if he should be recommitted for another year as a violent offender with a mental health disorder. The record must show that a defendant subject to commitment demonstrated an understanding of how a jury operates, the significance of a jury trial and the consequences of waiver.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: December 22, 2023, Case #: A166084, Categories: Competence, Jury, Assault
J. Streeter finds that the trial court should have granted an anti-SLAPP motion filed in response to a malicious prosecution complaint. The record shows that a factual dispute over whether the use of a driveway was an easement or a license created probable cause to support the underlying breach of contract claim, so the malicious prosecution complaint was unlikely to succeed. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: A164867, Categories: Anti-slapp, Malicious Prosecution, Property
J. Streeter finds that the trial court properly considered aggravating factors when sentencing defendant for criminal threats. Though not admitted by defendant or found true by a jury, his prior convictions were in the certified record, so the heightened proof standard for aggravating factors did not apply. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: November 29, 2023, Case #: A165613, Categories: Probation, Threats, Dui
[Modified.] J. Streeter makes two minor changes to a marital dissolution opinion and denies a rehearing with no change in judgment. The trial court properly rejected a husband's claim for reimbursement of a separate property contribution he made to a corporation that was determined in dissolution proceedings to be a community asset. His choice to sell his existing business to one owned jointly with his spouse for $1 does not mean it was a gift since low consideration is not the same as no consideration. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: November 29, 2023, Case #: A166543, Categories: Family Law
J. Streeter finds, on first impression, that the trial court properly rejected a husband's claim for reimbursement of a separate property contribution he made to a corporation that was determined in dissolution proceedings to be a community asset. His choice to sell his existing business to one owned jointly with his spouse for $1 does not mean it was a gift since low consideration is not the same as no consideration. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: A166543, Categories: Family Law
J. Streeter finds that the trial court properly denied motions to compel arbitration of wage and hour claims against rideshare companies Uber and Lyft. The state, which brought the claims as civil enforcement actions, is not a party to the arbitration agreements signed by rideshare and delivery drivers. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: A166355, Categories: Arbitration, Employment
J. Streeter finds that the trial court properly denied defendant's petition for resentencing for second degree murder after relying on preliminary hearing testimony that established he was the actual shooter. The testimony was admissible because a sentencing court may consider any evidence previously admitted in any prior hearing. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: A165093, Categories: Confrontation, Murder, Sentencing
[Modified.] J. Streeter makes more than a dozen clarifications with no change in judgment. The trial court must reconsider a motion by employees suing under the Private Attorneys General Act to intervene in a separate PAGA lawsuit in another court. Mandatory intervention is inapplicable since the movants sought intervention before a settlement was submitted from approval in the separate PAGA case. But the trial court may grant permissive intervention after considering a motion for a stay and the possibility of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. Vacated.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: A165320, Categories: Civil Procedure, Employment, Jurisdiction
J. Streeter finds that defendant's confrontation right was violated by the trial court's exclusion of all evidence indicating that an alleged victim sought a U-visa for her mother, which would grant legal status in exchange for helping investigators. The error was not harmless because the alleged victim's testimony was crucial to the prosecution, it was not cumulative and it was neither contradicted or corroborated by other evidence. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: A164897, Categories: Confrontation, Immigration, Sex Offender
J. Streeter finds that an employee's notice of appeal supported his appeal of the dismissal of his Private Attorneys General Act claim, as well as the preliminary orders before it. The trial court properly found that the state Covid-19 emergency order tolled the limitations period on his Act complaint. But the trial court improperly relied on a federal Act judgment to find that claim preclusion barred the employee's complaint. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: A163920, Categories: Civil Procedure, Employment
J. Streeter finds that the trial court must reconsider a motion by employees suing under the Private Attorneys General Act to intervene in a separate Act lawsuit in another court. Mandatory intervention is inapplicable since the movants sought intervention before a settlement was submitted from approval in the separate Act case. But the trial court may grant permissive intervention after considering a motion for a stay and the possibility of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. Vacated.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: A165320, Categories: Civil Procedure, Employment, Jurisdiction
[Modified.] J. Streeter changes the case title with no change in judgment. The trial court erred in dismissing a quiet title action as void ab initio. A complaint filed in the name of a nonexistent entity may be cured by amendment if its claim is within the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Trial courts have the discretionary power to rule on jurisdictional objections and, therefore, have the power to allow curative amendments for potentially fatal jurisdictional pleading defects. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: A163903, Categories: Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Banking / Lending
[Modified.] J. Streeter denies an insurer's petition for rehearing and modifies several paragraphs of an insurance coverage opinion with no change in judgment. The trial court properly dismissed a patient's individual Mental Health Parity Act claims because she did not name the correct defendant. However, summary judgment was improper for unfair competition and civil rights allegations that a health care plan discouraged members from seeking one-on-one mental health therapy. Triable issues of fact exist about whether the plan treats physical illness differently than mental illness. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: June 6, 2023, Case #: A162323, Categories: Civil Rights, Health Care, Insurance
J. Streeter finds that the trial court erred in dismissing a quiet title action as void ab initio. A complaint filed in the name of a nonexistent entity may be cured by amendment if its claim is within the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Trial courts have the discretionary power to rule on jurisdictional objections and, therefore, have the power to allow curative amendments for potentially fatal jurisdictional pleading defects. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: May 31, 2023, Case #: A163903, Categories: Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Banking / Lending
J. Streeter finds that the trial court properly dismissed a patient's individual Mental Health Parity Act claims because she did not name the correct defendant. However, summary judgment was improper for unfair competition and civil rights allegations that a health care plan discouraged members from seeking one-on-one mental health therapy. Triable issues of fact exist about whether the plan treats physical illness differently than mental illness. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: May 17, 2023, Case #: A162323, Categories: Civil Rights, Health Care, Insurance