11 results for 'judge:"Simons"'.
J. Simons finds that the trial court improperly ordered defendant to pay restitution after the end of her two-year mental health diversion period. Even though a mental health diversion does not end with a conviction, the trial court could have imposed restitution at the time it entered the diversion order and ordered its payment during diversion. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: A166452, Categories: Restitution, Restraining Order
J. Simons finds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order restitution after the end of defendant's probation on a hit-and-run conviction. Where a restitution order is for losses caused by a collision and not for the criminal act of leaving the scene, the order is a condition of probation and jurisdiction may not extend beyond the termination of probation. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: A167703, Categories: Restitution, Vehicle, Jurisdiction
[Modified.] J. Simons modifies the disposition with no change in judgment. The trial court improperly upheld a city's conclusion that a proposed ballot referendum challenging the approval of a development was invalid. The city claimed its approval was an administrative act not subject to referendum, but the resolution that approved the development included a policy decision to build and improve a public park, so it was a legislative act subject to referendum power. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: A167346, Categories: Elections, Property
[Consolidated.] J. Simons finds, on first impression, that the trial court properly allowed an insured who filed a property damage claim to video record the insurer's participants during his requisite examination under oath. Statute expressly states that the examination proceeding may be recorded in its entirety. Affirmed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: January 30, 2024, Case #: A166946, Categories: Insurance
J. Gomez finds that the trial court failed to support a $100,000 restitution order with findings about the impact of defendant's sex offenses on his son, and instead applied its own experience from similar cases. The bar is low, and the victim is not required to testify, but a statement the victim made to investigators, or a statement by a treating physician, therapist or someone with personal knowledge of the victim impact is required. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: November 14, 2023, Case #: A164374, Categories: Evidence, Sex Offender, Restitution
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. Simons finds the probate court improperly determined that the family-owned company lacks standing to participate in a family trust petition filed by certain owners because it was not a beneficiary or a trustee. Each of the siblings own an equal share of the company and a shareholder agreement provides that shareholders can borrow and lend money and transfer assets. Probate Code permits the court to designate as an interested person anyone having an interest in an estate which may be affected by a probate proceeding and the court must make the discretionary determination as to whether the company is an interested person. Reversed and remanded.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: October 13, 2023, Case #: A166997, Categories: Trusts, Wills / Probate, Contract
[Modified.] J. Simons fixes a typo and adds a footnote with no change in the judgment. The trial court erred when it found a voter-approved city ordinance that expanded the electorate for school board elections to noncitizen parents void and unenforceable. Charter cities have the authority under the state constitution to include noncitizen parents in school board elections. Also, charter cities are exempted from Education Code provisions that require compliance the election law requirement that registered voters be citizens. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: A165899, Categories: Education, Elections, Municipal Law
J. Simons holds that the trial court erred when it found a voter-approved city ordinance that expanded the electorate for school board elections to noncitizen parents void and unenforceable. Charter cities have the authority under the state constitution to include noncitizen parents in school board elections. Also, charter cities are exempted from Education Code provisions that require compliance the election law requirement that registered voters be citizens. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: August 8, 2023, Case #: A165899, Categories: Education, Elections, Municipal Law
J. Simons finds that the trial court improperly upheld a city's warrantless towing of lawfully parked and registered vehicles based on unpaid parking tickets. The vehicular community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment does not apply. The city failed to show that deterring parking violations and enforcing the payment of parking fines meets the requirements of the exception. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: July 21, 2023, Case #: A164180, Categories: Search, Vehicle
J. Simons finds that the trial court misapprehended statute when it held an employer was not required to reimburse employees for expenses they incurred setting up home offices during Covid-19 stay-at-home orders. Even if the state orders were the intervening cause of the home office expenses, the expenses were still a direct consequence of the employer's requirement that employees discharge their duties. Reversed.
Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: July 11, 2023, Case #: A165390, Categories: Employment, Covid-19
J. Simons finds that the trial court properly dismissed a temporary service employee's claim that she should have been promptly paid upon her discharge from a temporary assignment. There was no factual dispute that the managers at the temporary assignment had ended the assignment, but had not said anything about whether her employer would give her a new assignment. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: May 10, 2023, Case #: A165081, Categories: Arbitration, Employment