Cross-Appellant Opening Brief in TriCity v. Sterling

download Cross-Appellant Opening Brief in TriCity v. Sterling

of 102

  • date post

    30-Aug-2014
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    72
  • download

    3

Embed Size (px)

description

Respondent's brief and Cross appellant's opening brief filed on behalf of Kathleen Sterling in the failed restraining order case of TriCity Healthcare District v. Kathleen Sterling.

Transcript of Cross-Appellant Opening Brief in TriCity v. Sterling

No. D059810 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE _____________ Tri-City Healthcare District, Petitioner/Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Kathleen Sterling, Defendant/Respondent/Cross-Appellant

Appeal from the Superior Court for San Diego County Superior Court No. 37-2011-00052101-CU-PT-NC (Consolidated with: 52102; 52103; 52104; 52112; 52114) Hon. Richard E. Mills, Presiding _____________ RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANTS BRIEF

___________________________________________________________ Charles M. Kagay SBN 73377 Spiegel Liao & Kagay, LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-5959 Scott A. McMillan, SBN 212506 The McMillan Law Firm, APC 4670 Nebo Drive, Suite 200 La Mesa, California 91941-5230 (619) 464-1500 x 14

Attorneys for Defendant/Respondent/Cross-Appellant Kathleen Sterling

Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.208) There are no interested entities or persons to list in this certificate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.208(e)(3).) DATED: April 25, 2012 Spiegel Liao & Kagay, LLP

By______________________ Charles M. Kagay Attorneys for Defendant/ Appellant/Cross-Respondent Kathleen Sterling

2

Table of Contents

I. II.

INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Nature of Action, Relief Sought, and Judgment Appealed From. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of Facts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Procedural History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

B. C.

RESPONDENTS BRIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 I. II. INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A. B. C. Summary of Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 TCHD Failed to Request a Statement of Decision.. . . 17 TCHD Improperly Bases Its Challenges on the Trial Courts Statements from the Bench. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Note on Citations to the Record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The Trial Courts Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence Cannot Be a Basis for Reversal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1. The Exclusions TCHD Complains Of Are Quite Limited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 TCHD Waived Its Argument Against the Hearsay Rulings by Failing to Make It to the Trial Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 i

D. E.

2.

3.

TCHD Cannot Show Prejudice from the Hearsay Rulings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

F.

The Trial Courts Definition of Battery Cannot Be a Basis for Reversal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 The Trial Courts Observation that Mr. Crooks Did Not Fear Ms. Sterling Cannot Be a Basis for Reversal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1. TCHDs Lengthy Argument About a Showing of Fear Is Irrelevant to the Outcome of this Appeal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 TCHDs Argument that Irreparable Injury Need Not Be Shown Runs Counter to Established Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 a. Private Parties Must Show Irreparable Injury to Obtain a Statutory Injunction46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Gdowski Decision Does Not Support TCHDs Position. . . . . . . . . . . . 50 The Legislative History Does Not Support TCHDs Position. . . . . . . . . . . . 54

G.

2.

b.

c.

H.

TCHDs Arguments for Reversal of the Trial Courts Decisions on the Other Petitions Have Even Less Merit than Its Arguments on the Crooks Petition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

III.

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

CROSS-APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 I. INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 ii

II.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE CROSS-APPEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 A. B. C. Appealability of Judgment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Standard of Review.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Additional Statement of Facts Pertinent to CrossAppeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

III.

ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 A. B. C. Summary of Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 The Four Requirements of Section 1021.5.. . . . . . . . . 62 The Trial Courts Narrow Analysis Did Not Properly Identify the Rights under Attack in these Actions. . . . 63 Ms. Sterlings Victories Enforced an Important Right Affecting the Public Interest.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Ms. Sterlings Victories Conferred a Significant Benefit on the General Public.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 The Necessity and Financial Burden of Private Enforcement Made a Fee Award Appropriate. . . . . . . 79

D.

E.

F.

IV.

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RULE 8.204(d) Attachment (Trial Exhibit 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tab A

iii

Table of Authorities

Cases

Bell v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672. . . . . 77 Bond v. Floyd (1966) 385 U.S. 116.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 California Assn. of Dispensing Opticians v. Pearle Vision Center, Inc. (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 419. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 48 California Common Cause v. Duffy (1987) 200 Cal.App.3d 730. . 73 Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Ca1.4th 780. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 City of Los Angeles v. Animal Defense League (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 606. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287.. . . . . . . 81 City of San Jose v. Garbett (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 526. . . . . . . . . 46 Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277. . . . . . . . . . . 49 County of San Luis Obispo v. Abalone Alliance (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 848. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 81 DVD Copy Control Assn. Inc. v. Bunner (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 241. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-49 DVD Copy Control Assn., 116 Cal.App.4th 241. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Edgar v. W.C.A.B. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Family Planning Specialists Medical Group, Inc. v. Powers (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 1561. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

iv

Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Gdowski v. Gdowski (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 128. . 21, 46, 48, 50, 51 Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Hull v. Rossi (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1763. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73, 80 In re Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206. . . 58, 82-84 In re K.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 905.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507. . . . . . . 5 In re Marriage of Ditto (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 643. . . . . . . . . 19, 20 In re Marriage of Green (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 14. . . . . . . . . . . . 19 In re Marriage of Van Hook (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 970. . 46, 48, 49 Jay Bharat Developers, Inc. v. Minidis (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 437. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 550. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 37 Laraway v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 579. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Leach v. City of San Marcos (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 648. . . . . . 47-49 Lindgren v. Baker Engineering Corp. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1351. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 626. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

v

MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Gorman (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Metropolitan Culinary Services, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 935. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Monterey/Santa Cruz County Bldg. and Const. Trades Council v. Cypress Marina Heights LP (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 150077. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pacific Hills Homeowners Assn v. Prun (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1557. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Paul v. Wadler (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 615. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46-49 Pellegrino v. Robert Half Intern., Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 278. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .