Reported Appellate Decisions by Joseph Arias

Brewster v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 235 Cal.App.3d 701

(1991) Reversal of award of sanctions against plaintiffs’ attorney for fraudulently halting trains following a 59-car derailment and explosion in pending litigation.

Campbell v. County of San Bernardino, 705 F.2d 1128

(9th Cir. 1983) 9th Cir. addressed issue of whether father of a child taken into protective custody by County’s Child Protective Services Department could represent himself and the child.

Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295

(9th Cir. 1983) US District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s civil rights by terminating/disconnecting his utilities services without prior notice.

Loya v. Desert Sands Unified School Dist., 721 F.2d 279

(1983) US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed issue whether then 90 day period within which to initiate civil complaint following receipt of right to sue letter was jurisdictional.

Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co., 50 Cal.App.3d 608

(1975) 4th District Court Of Appeals defined “course and scope” of employment in the context of an after-hours altercation at a construction site.

San Bernardino Public Employees Association v. Stout, 946 F.Supp. 790

(C.D. Cal. 1996). District Court opinion addressing First Amendment issues in action brought by a union against San Bernardino County district attorney for allegedly issuing memoranda to silence District Attorney employees.

The People vs. Edward Aguirre, et al., (1972) 26 Cal.App.3rd Supp. 7; 103 Cal.Rptr.153

(1972) The Court of Appeals declared that a search warrant obtained by telephoning a judge for his authorization was valid.

Reported Appellate Decisions by Christopher Lockwood

Ankhenaten Ra El v. Crain, 560 F.Supp. 932

(C.D. Cal. 2008), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20536 (9th Cir. 2010). Whether the plaintiff was properly arrested and prosecuted.

Armendariz v. Penman, 31 F.3d 860

(9th Cir. 1994), rehearing en banc granted, opinion on rehearing en banc 75 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1996). This case is a civil rights challenge to steps taken by the City of San Bernardino to enforce building codes in substandard apartments. The appeal was taken interlocutory from denial of motions based on qualified immunity and concerns substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection, and the Fair Housing Act. The en banc court ruled in our favor on the substantive due process and Fair Housing Act claims, but found triable issues on the procedural due process and equal protection claims.

Bailey v. County of Riverside, 414 F.3d 1023

(9th Cir. 2005) The court held that, despite the express terms of the applicable rule, the deadline for a motion for attorney’s fees is the date post-judgment motions are denied rather than the date judgment is entered.

Benigni v. City of Hemet, 853 F.2d 1519

(9th Cir. 1988), modified 868 F.2d 307, modified 879 F.2d 473. The issue on appeal was whether there was substantial evidence to support a judgment in favor of a bar against a police department, and whether the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed.

Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino, 35 Cal.App.4th 1654

(1995) This case considered, and rejected, a contention that the County could be held liable for the negligence of a tenant at a County airport on a variety of theories. The court accepted a comparison of an airport and its tenants to a shopping mall.

In re Castro, 919 F.2d 107

(9th Cir. 1990) This addressed whether a district court must independently review the factual findings of a bankruptcy judgment in a non-core proceeding, and reversed a judgment when such a review did not take place.

Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d

(9th Cir. 2006) Amicus counsel in a case challenging the constitutionality of Penal Code § 148.6, which makes it a crime to file a known false report against a peace officer. Court disagreed with California Supreme Court Stanistreet decision.

County of Riverside v. Superior Court (Madrigal), 27 Cal.4th 793

(2002) Petition for writ of mandate summarily denied, petition to Supreme Court granted, decision on merits by court of appeal, petition for hearing granted, decided on the merits. The case addressed whether a background investigation file prepared while a laterally hired law enforcement officer is working for the law enforcement agency can be kept confidential based on waivers of rights to see the file and statutory privileges. The court of appeal held that waivers of rights to see files are invalid, and found the statutory privileges inapplicable. The Supreme Court reversed and upheld that validity of the waivers.

Cumming v. City of San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency, 101 Cal.App.4th 1229

(2002) The question was when the statute of limitations accrues in a CEQA challenge. Judgment for the plaintiff reversed.

Gordon v. City of Moreno Valley, 687 F.Supp.2d 939

(C.D. Cal. 2009) Whether alleged inspections of barbershops violated the federal Constitution.

Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino, 325 F.Supp.2d 1087 and 107 F.Supp.2d 1239

(C.D. Cal. 2004) and (C.D.Cal. 2000) Respectively. Whether Penal Code § 148.6, which makes it a crime to file a known false report against a peace officer, is valid. Court found it in violation of the First Amendment. (See related amicus briefs in Stanistreet and Chaker cases.)

Irwin v. City of Hemet, 22 Cal.App.4th 507

(1994) The case addressed the potential liability of a city for a pretrial detainee who commits suicide. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Jenkins v. County of Riverside, 398 F.3d 1093

(9th Cir. 2005) The court held that a temporary employee can become a permanent employee, and entitled to a due process hearing, if the employee stays in the position more than the time allowed for the position.

Jenkins v. County of Riverside, 138 Cal.App.4th 593

(2006) The court of appeal disagreed with the Ninth Circuit and held that a temporary employee cannot become a permanent employee if the position has been designated by the Board as temporary.

Jocer Enterprises v. Price, 183 Cal.App.4th 559

(2010) Whether the statute of limitations for a legal malpractice suit is tolled while the defendant is out of state.

Madruga v. County of Riverside, 431 F.Supp.2d 1049

(C.D. Cal. 2005) Whether entry into the courtyard of a house through an unlocked gate violates the Fourth Amendment. Court found a violation. (The case was then settled on appeal).

Manta Management Corp. v. City of San Bernardino, 43 Cal.4th 400

(2008) Whether a city can be held liable under federal law for obtaining a preliminary injunction or stay pending appeal. The Court reversed a $1.4 million trial court judgment and found no liability unless the court was materially misled at the time of the decision. It remanded for further proceedings on that issue.

People v. Atkison, 29 Cal.4th 497

(2002) Amicus counsel in a criminal case challenging the validity of Penal Code § 148.6, which makes it a crime to file a known false report against a peace officer.

Redevelopment Agency v. Alvarez, 288 F.Supp.2d 1112

(C.D. Cal. 2003) Whether counter claims based on federal law could remain in state court after the state law claims were remanded to state court. The court remanded the counter claims.

Roberts v. College of the Desert, 861 F.2d 1163, modified 870 F.2d 1411

(9th Cir. 1988) Whether the plaintiff had produced substantial evidence of sexual discrimination, and whether a community college is entitled to eleventh amendment immunity. Affirmed on the merits, remanded for further proceedings on the 11th Amendment.

Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.4th 440

(2011) Amicus counsel in a case addressing what records of a county retirement agency must be produced in response to a Public Records Act request.

Salazar v. Diversified Paratransit, Inc., 117 Cal.App.4th 318

(2004) Amicus counsel in a case addressing whether an employer can be held liable for harassment by a customer of the employer, and whether a new statute was retroactive.

Saman v. Robins, 173 F.3d 1150

(9th Cir. 1999) Whether police officers used excessive force. Judgment for plaintiff reversed; on cross-appeal, judgment for other defendants affirmed; order denying attorney’s fees reversed.

San Bernardino Physicians’ Services Medical Group, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino, 825 F.2d 1404

(9th Cir. 1987) Whether contract disputes with public entities may be litigated as civil rights violations in federal court. Defense judgment affirmed.

Sanchez v. County of San Bernardino, 176 Cal.App.4th 516

(2009) Whether a member of a county board of supervisors can be held personally liable for statements about a former employee.

Soto v. County of Riverside, 162 Cal.App.4th 492

(2008) Whether a provision requiring public employees who opt out of a free disciplinary appeal can be required to pay half the costs of the arbitrator. The court held that this type of provision is invalid.

Stubblefield Construction Co. v. City of San Bernardino, 32 Cal.App.4th 687

(1995) Federal civil rights challenge to land use decisions of the City of San Bernardino. While the case was handled by another firm, the jury returned a verdict of $11.5 million. The trial judge ordered new trial on damages only. The court of appeal ordered JNOV for the City. The California Supreme Court denied review; a petition for certiorari was denied.

Stubblefield Construction Company v. Superior Court, 81 Cal.App.4th 762

(2000) In a companion case, the plaintiff filed a § 170.6 challenge 45 days after summary judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part for further proceedings. The trial court struck the challenge as untimely based on a deadline in the fast track statutes. The court of appeal held that a separate deadline stated in § 170.6 takes precedence and upheld the challenge.

Urethane Foam Experts, Inc. v. Latimer, 31 Cal.App.4th 763

(1995) Trial court granted an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record for a corporation, but did not require compliance with the rules specifying the notice to the client. Reversed a judgment based on a trial conducted after the defective notice was served.

Watson v. County of Riverside, 300 F.3d 1092

(9th Cir. 2002) The district trial court awarded attorney’s fees even though the plaintiff won nothing but a preliminary injunction not based on the merits and lost everything else. The panel affirmed. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied. A petition for certiorari was denied.

Our Location

1881 S. Business Center Drive, Suite 9A
San Bernardino, California 92408


Call For a Free Consultation

909-890-0125