13 results for 'judge:"Goldman"'.
[Consolidated.] J. Goldman finds that the trial court improperly granted a shooting range's motion to strike allegations that it had violated its lease with a city by demolishing and rebuilding its facility. It also erred in sustaining the range's demurrers on a neighbor's Environmental Quality Act and zoning claims. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: A165345, Categories: Environment, Property, Zoning
J. Goldman finds the lower court properly rendered judgment against a property owner in this contract dispute. A business and a property management company entered into a letter of intent to lease a property. The business paid double rent for a period of 20 months to hold the property vacant while it sought a permit to operate a cannabis dispensary. The letter of intent stated that once the permit was obtained, the owner would transfer possession of the property to the business so that it could operate the dispensary; but once the permit was obtained, the owner refused claiming he would never have agreed to lease to a cannabis dispensary. A settlement was reached via mediation, but the property owner later refused to sign the formal agreement. The lower court found the mediated term sheet to be an enforceable agreement, and judgment was rendered against the owner who was ordered to pay the business $1.6 million per the terms of the agreement. The instant court reverses the award of prejudgment interest in the amount of $55,671, but otherwise agrees with the lower court's findings. Affirmed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: A166242, Categories: Landlord Tenant, Real Estate, Contract
J. Goldman holds that a challenge to the trial court's guardianship order is moot since the order expired before appellate briefing was complete. The statutory one-year period of conservatorships poses an inherent risk of mootness for appeals. Appellants requesting extensions should inform appellate courts of a challenged order's expiration date to allow for a timely good cause evaluation.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: A166825, Categories: Civil Procedure, Guardianship
[Modified.] J. Goldman alters a footnote, adds a footnote and denies a rehearing with no change in judgment. The trial court properly refused to grant a drug manufacturer summary judgment on a negligence claim alleging it deferred development of an HIV drug that showed fewer side effects in order to continue profiting from an existing HIV drug. The manufacturer's duty of care includes responsibilities beyond its obligation not to sell defective products, and two exceptions to the duty of care cited by the manufacturer are inapplicable. However, a fraudulent concealment claim cannot proceed because the manufacturer did not have a duty to disclose information about the newer HIV drug with fewer side effects. Vacated in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: A165558, Categories: Fraud, Consumer Law, Negligence
J. Goldman finds that the trial court properly refused to grant a drug manufacturer summary judgment on a negligence claim alleging it deferred development of an HIV drug that showed fewer side effects in order to continue profiting from an existing HIV drug. The manufacturer's duty of care includes responsibilities beyond its obligation not to sell defective products, and two exceptions to the duty of care cited by the manufacturer are inapplicable. However, a fraudulent concealment claim cannot proceed because the manufacturer did not have a duty to disclose information about the newer HIV drug with fewer side effects. Vacated in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: A165558, Categories: Fraud, Consumer Law, Negligence
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. Goldman finds that evidence supported a jury finding that defendant committed arson of an inhabited structure, as he still lived at the home that he set on fire. Statements he made to an arson investigator were not made while in custody so Miranda protections were inapplicable. However, neither his insurer nor the fire department are entitled to restitution since they were not direct victims of the crime. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: A162304, Categories: Miranda, Restitution, Arson
J. Goldman reverses a 15% administrative fee that was tacked onto two $10,000 restitution orders defendant received after pleading guilty to assault on a police officer because the statute calling for such administrative fees had been repealed at the time of sentencing. But his challenge to the restitution orders was not preserved since he failed to object to them at sentencing. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: A164989, Categories: Restitution, Due Process
J. Goldman finds that the trial court properly denied defendant's claim that the application of aggravating factors to his sex offense charges violated his due process rights. The legislature delegated to the Judicial Council the authority to determine which sentencing factors are aggravators, and that delegation is not a violation of the separation of powers. The use of qualitative terms to determine whether circumstances are aggravators does not make the use of the factors unconstitutionally vague. And the facts supporting the aggravators do not need to be detailed in the preliminary hearing.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: November 13, 2023, Case #: A166159, Categories: Sentencing, Sex Offender, Due Process
[Consolidated.] J. Goldman finds the Water Quality Control Board properly imposed more than $6 million in penalties for the resort owner’s pollution of protected waterways during its construction of a residential resort. Separate petitions filed by the owner for administrative mandamus missed the filing deadline by three weeks. The state board’s declining to review the regional board’s decision is not subject to judicial review. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: A165227, Categories: Construction, Environment, Water
J. Goldman finds the trial court improperly convicted defendant for murder. According to various testimonies, a man who was “shooting up” in a truck outside defendant’s home was killed through actions of several people, including stabbing, kicking and stomping. The trial court did not consider defendant’s youth in assessing whether he formed the requisite mental state for conviction. Reversed and remanded.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: October 13, 2023, Case #: A161815, Categories: Evidence, Murder, Due Process
J. Goldman finds the trial court properly convicted defendant by guilty plea for assault on a police officer with a firearm after committing multiple residential burglaries. Defendant shot at a responding officer after a foot chase before he was apprehended and charged with attempted murder, as well as a number of charges stemming from the burglaries. The assault charge was added, and the others were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. A 15% administrative fee assessed on victim restitution amounts was invalid because the statute licensing it was repealed before sentencing. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: October 6, 2023, Case #: A164989, Categories: Firearms, Assault, Restitution
J. Wadleigh finds that sufficient detail about child pornography images supported warrants to search defendant's home and electronic devices. The officer's descriptions to the magistrate were adequate, but whenever possible, warrant applications should include the actual images of suspected child pornography, especially if a subjective determination of the legality of the images is required. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: July 12, 2023, Case #: A165017, Categories: Search, Child Pornography
J. Goldman finds that the trial court properly denied an anti-SLAPP motion filed by administrators at the College of the Law, San Francisco. The administrators failed to show they were entitled to anti-SLAPP protection from claims that legislation changing the school's name from Hastings College of the Law was unconstitutional. The claims arise from the enactment of the legislation, not from the administrators' protected activity. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: A166898, Categories: Anti-slapp