13 results for 'judge:"Goethals"'.
J. Goethals finds that the trial court properly rejected a pistachio grower's challenges to a local water agency's imposition of a groundwater replenishment fee. The grower's failure to "pay first, litigate later" violated established public policy and precluded its common law claim to native groundwater and its takings claim that the water was then illegally offered to other users. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: G062327, Categories: Agriculture, Water
J. Goethals holds that the trial court improperly awarded a business $180,000 in costs after rejecting employment claims from a person it determined was an independent contractor, not an employee. The business filed a motion for attorney fees, which was denied, but failed to file a requisite motion for costs. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: February 5, 2024, Case #: G061425, Categories: Employment, Attorney Fees
J. Goethals finds that questions of fact should have precluded summary judgment in a wrongful death case against the department of corrections. Further proceedings are required to determine whether a corrections officer who chased another vehicle as he headed to work was involved in law enforcement or road rage when he forced another vehicle off the road. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: G062782, Categories: Negligence, Wrongful Death
J. Goethals holds that the trial court improperly dismissed a rescission action that sought the recovery of money paid to keep secret the existence of an extramarital affair and a resulting child. The father of the child sought to rescind the transaction, which was the result of a threat by the mother to expose the affair and child. There is a civil statutory right, analogous to the crime of extortion, to rescind consent that was obtained through menace. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: G061633, Categories: Contract
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
J. Goethals finds the trial court properly entered an order of $6,000 in discovery sanctions against the daughter of the deceased and her attorney who issued a document subpoena in this dispute over a family trust which was quashed as overly broad and constituting an unreasonable intrusion on the privacy rights of her father. The daughter fails to directly challenge the court’s determinations regarding her misuse of discovery or demonstrate why the court abused its discretion. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: October 27, 2023, Case #: G061197, Categories: Sanctions, Trusts, Discovery
J. Goethals finds that the trial court improperly denied defendant's petition to be resentenced on three first degree murder convictions in light of changes to felony murder and implied malice murder law. He did not waive his due process right to be present at the evidentiary hearing and is entitled to be present at a new evidentiary hearing so he may offer testimony or evidence in response to the state's presentation. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: G061191, Categories: Murder, Sentencing, Due Process
J. Goethals finds that the trial court's decision to allow jurors to wear face masks and practice social distancing due to Covid-19 did not prejudice defendant as he stood trial for molesting his girlfriend's daughter. Also, any prejudice caused by the jury's awareness that he was in custody was cured by a trial court admonition. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: G061280, Categories: Jury, Sex Offender, Due Process
J. Goethals holds that the trial court properly excused a juror for cause from a possession of drugs in jail case. Defendant argued that a general distrust of police officers is a presumptively invalid reason to challenge a juror, which is true of peremptory challenges, but not challenges for cause. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: G061394, Categories: Drug Offender, Jury
J. Goethals finds that the trial court should have granted an anti-SLAPP motion to a news organization. The motion sought to overcome a professor's effort to prevent the Public Records Act disclosure of her communications with her university and with non-university journals that had corrected or retracted articles she had written. The protected activity of newsgathering in a matter of public interest was the basis of the records request. A partially taxpayer-funded university's handling of scholarly integrity is public business and the professor's petition for writ of mandate and injunctive relief to prevent the release of the communications could inhibit free speech. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: G061238, Categories: Anti-slapp, Civil Rights, Public Record
J. Goethals finds that an injured worker failed to show a property owner knew or should have known about a concealed access panel that he fell through. The trial court properly applied the Privette doctrine, which pins workplace injury liability on the contractors that hire workers, and the Kinsman exception to the doctrine does not apply. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: June 23, 2023, Case #: G061301, Categories: Negligence
[Consolidated.] J. Goethals holds that the trial court must revisit its decision to vacate an earlier attorney fee award. The trial court had jurisdiction to decide how to divvy up settlement proceeds between an attorney and his former clients. It was not required to vacate that adjudication when the clients' subsequent attorney argued that no settlement funds would be left for his fees. The attorney fee claims are severable, the first attorney's liens have priority because they were established first and the second attorney standing to challenge the move to vacate since he was a non-party to the initial fee order. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: G060579, Categories: Attorney Fees