Hon. Yvette M. Palazuelos, Ret.

Discrimination

• She has tried and adjudicated many employment cases, including sexual harassment, sex, pregnancy, age and race discrimination, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, failure to accommodate and engage in interactive process, ADA failure to accommodate, and trade secret misappropriation.
• Adjudicated an employment age discrimination jury trial. Plaintiffs, highly skilled female servers, sued their employer, a restaurateur, for age discrimination. Plaintiffs presented evidence of pretext, that is, that they were fired for phony performance issues. The verdict was reported on local television as well as various local newspapers.

Wage and Hour

• Adjudicated a class action suit against a car wash and its owners for wage and hour violations against Spanish-speaking car wash workers. The car wash company moved to compel arbitration because the workers had signed employment agreements containing arbitration clauses. However, the court denied the motion finding that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, citing among other things, the fact that parts of the arbitration agreement were in English, and parts of it were in Spanish. The Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the decision in a published opinion.

Wage and Hour Class Action

• Adjudicated a complex wage and hour class action. Plaintiff’s claims involved failure to pay meal and rest break wages, minimum wages, etc. The case presented disqualification issues based on defense counsel’s representation of class members where confidential information may have been gained during class members’ limited representation during discovery/depositions. The disqualification issues impacted settlement after the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

Wrongful Termination

• Adjudicated a misrepresentation and wrongful termination jury trial in which the Plaintiff alleged that it hired Defendant as Controller and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), but that Defendant grossly exaggerated her professional experience for the purpose of securing the job, and this lack of experience in accounting led to substantial business damage / loss. Defendant cross-complained for wrongful termination claiming that she was fired because she discovered that Plaintiff was not disclosing business relationships to the IRS, not paying sales taxes, and that violating wage and hour laws.

Environmental Issues

• She has tried and adjudicated cases involving the environment, including CEQA, California Coastal Act, zoning, and Groundwater Adjudication.
• Adjudicated a complex groundwater water rights case among users pumping groundwater from the basin in a County. The case was filed under CCP § 830 (the “Streamlined Adjudication Act”). These cases are court trials and tried in five phases.
• Adjudicated a case involving the California Coastal Act of 1976. Plaintiff claimed that the City illegally exempted certain development projects from permitting requirements in the land use plan and in the California Coastal Act. The court evaluated the city’s acts in connection with the land use plan and characterized them as “ministerial” as opposed to involving “independent, subjective judgment”, thus requiring neither notice to the community nor a City Planning Commission hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Court in a published decision.
• Adjudicated a case involving CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). CEQA requires state and local government agencies to first determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA, and then to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA or requires some form of a CEQA document, [an environmental impact report (EIR), a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration (MND)]. However, CEQA also has a statute of limitations. Any lawsuit alleging CEQA noncompliance must be filed within 30 days after a facially valid Notice of determination (NOD) is filed. In this case, the court determined that CEQA claims were time-barred and, in a published decision, the Court of Appeal agreed.

Civil Rights

• Adjudcated a jury trial in which the Plaintiff, through his parents, sued Defendant for civil rights violations (42 USC §1983). Plaintiff suffered traumatic brain injuries during a race riot at a juvenile probation camp where Plaintiff was incarcerated. Defendants admitted that a “disturbance” occurred in the juvenile camp and that Plaintiff was injured but disputed the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant introduced subrosa videotape of Plaintiff and the jury hung. The case was settled before retrial.

Regulatory

• She has experience handling cases involving government entities, including tax, real estate, law enforcement, civil rights, eminent domain, and complex franchise/technology issues.
• Adjudicated a complex case filed involving the city and prominent streaming service. The City claimed that the streaming services were required under the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA) to pay franchise fees to local governments for using public rights-of-way to provide video service in their jurisdictions. Defendants demurred and the Court sustained the demurrers and without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal. City appealed. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the Act does not authorize local governments to seek franchise fees from non-franchise holders. The Act allows local governments to sue franchise holders over unpaid or underpaid franchise fees, but it does not extend this right of action to companies that do not hold a state franchise. The court further noted that the Act empowers the state's public utilities commission to enforce franchise-related issues, including the issuance of franchises and the collection of associated fees. The court also rejected the City's claim for declaratory relief, which sought a court order compelling the service providers to obtain state franchises and pay franchise fees going forward. The court's ruling means that local governments in California cannot sue video service providers for failing to pay franchise fees unless those companies hold a state franchise. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Court in a published decision.
• Adjudicated a government immunity law enforcement case. Plaintiff, vehicle passenger’s mother, filed a wrongful death action against the City after her son died in a car accident while the police chased his car and used the Precision Immobilization Technique (“PIT”) maneuver. Vehicle Code section 17004.7 provides public agencies employing peace officers with immunity for collisions resulting from police chases if the agency “adopts and promulgates a written policy on and provides regular and periodic training on an annual basis for, vehicular pursuits....” The written policy must include “a requirement that all peace officers of the public agency certify in writing that they have received, read, and understand the policy.” The city argued it was immune from liability because it complied with this section. Plaintiff argued that the City was not immune because all of its officers had not executed written certifications.
• Adjudicated an eminent domain real estate jury trial in which the Plaintiff sued in eminent domain to condemn (take) property owned by Defendant. The issue was the value of the property/building. Defendant wanted more than Plaintiff was willing to pay because Defendant needed to make a new building/property “code complaint” which included compliance with new building codes, parking requirements, ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements etc.

Catastrophic Injury

• She has tried and adjudicated many personal injury and wrongful death cases -from everyday cases to large media cases. The cases involve traumatic brain injuries, auto accidents, medical malpractice, assault and battery (including sex assault), elder abuse, slip-and-falls, and product liability (including food and beverage, pharmaceutical and asbestos).

Mass Torts

• As a judge in the Complex Department, she handled complex mass torts, including a mass childhood sex assault case against a county that involved thousands of foster children who claimed they were sexually abused. The cases had unique procedures not employed in other mass tort cases, such as Certificates of Merit, Applications for Juvenile Records, Discovery (and fact sheets) of sensitive information. In connection with these mass torts, Judge Palazuelos demonstrated a combination of legal expertise and compassion.

Wrongful Death

• Adjudicated a personal injury jury trial. Mother of decedent sued for motor vehicle negligence because her son, a blind man, was killed when he attempted to board Defendant’s train and fell onto the train tracks.The case was closely watched by advocacy groups for the visually impaired whose members often sat in the courtroom during trial.
• Adjudicated a wrongful death jury trial of an extremely high-profile music artist. The family of the decedent filed suit alleging that an entertainment company negligently hired, retained and supervised the physician who was criminally convicted for the death. Plaintiffs sought eleven-figures in damages. The long jury trial was closely followed by the media, fans and the public for several months. The closing arguments and jury verdict were televised worldwide. The jury found Defendant not liable for the death. The Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the judgment, including rulings on pretrial motions, in a published decision. The California Supreme Court denied review.