de novo review standard in California

2025(Herberg v. California Institute of the Arts (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 142, 148 .) “‘As a corollary of the de novo review standard, the appellate court may affirm a summary judgment on any correct legal theory, as long as the parties had an adequate opportunity to address the theory in the trial court.’” (California School of Culinary Arts v. Lujan (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 16, 22 .) In other words, we review the trial court’s ruling, not its reasoning.

2023(Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021) 12 Cal.5th 29, 39 .) “ ‘As a corollary of the de novo review standard, the appellate court may affirm a summary judgment on any correct legal theory, as long as the parties had an adequate opportunity to address the theory in the trial court.’ ” (California School of Culinary Arts v. Lujan (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 16, 22 .) Although we review the grant of summary judgment de novo, “[a]s with an appeal from any judgment, it is the appellant’s responsibility to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 116 .) Thus, an app

2026(United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 105 .) “A party asserting disqualification has a ‘heavy burden’ and ‘must “ ‘clearly’ ” establish the appearance of bias.’ ” (Bassett Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 273 , 286.) “The weight of authority supports that where, as here, the relevant facts are undisputed, a de novo review standard applies to a [Code of Civil Procedure] section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) challenge to a claimed appearance of partiality.” (Wechsler v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 384, 391-392 ; see also Sincavage

2026(United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 105 .) “A party asserting disqualification has a ‘heavy burden’ and ‘must “ ‘clearly’ ” establish the appearance of bias.’ ” (Bassett Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 273 , 286.) “The weight of authority supports that where, as here, the relevant facts are undisputed, a de novo review standard applies to a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) challenge to a claimed appearance of partiality.” (Wechsler v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 384, 391-392 ; see also Sincavage v

2026(United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 105 .) “A party asserting disqualification has a ‘heavy burden’ and ‘must “ ‘clearly’ ” establish the appearance of bias.’ ” (Bassett Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 273 , 286.) “The weight of authority supports that where, as here, the relevant facts are undisputed, a de novo review standard applies to a [Code of Civil Procedure] section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) challenge to a claimed appearance of partiality.” (Wechsler v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 384, 391-392 ; see also Sincavage

2026(United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 105 .) “A party asserting disqualification has a ‘heavy burden’ and ‘must “ ‘clearly’ ” establish the appearance of bias.’ ” (Bassett Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 273 , 286.) “The weight of authority supports that where, as here, the relevant facts are undisputed, a de novo review standard applies to a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) challenge to a claimed appearance of partiality.” (Wechsler v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 384, 391-392 ; see also Sincavage v

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].)” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477 .) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, “‘“‘we identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. [Citations.]’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].)” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477 .) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, “‘“‘we identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. [Citations.]’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954

2023“These are questions of statutory interpretation that we must consider de novo.” (People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71 ; see also People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 [reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard].) The Two-Dismissal Rule Under Section 1387, Subdivision (a) “[S]ection 1387 limits the number of times the prosecution may dismiss and refile charges.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) “Although the text of section 1387 is ‘hardly pellucid’ (Burris v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1012,

2023“These are questions of statutory interpretation that we must consider de novo.” (People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71 ; see also People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 [reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard].) The Two-Dismissal Rule Under Section 1387, Subdivision (a) “[S]ection 1387 limits the number of times the prosecution may dismiss and refile charges.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) “Although the text of section 1387 is ‘hardly pellucid’ (Burris v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1012,

2023“These are questions of statutory interpretation that we must consider de novo.” (People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71 ; see also People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 [reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard].) The Two-Dismissal Rule Under Section 1387, Subdivision (a) “[S]ection 1387 limits the number of times the prosecution may dismiss and refile charges.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) “Although the text of section 1387 is ‘hardly pellucid’ (Burris v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1012,

2023“These are questions of statutory interpretation that we must consider de novo.” (People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71 ; see also People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 [reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard].) The Two-Dismissal Rule Under Section 1387, Subdivision (a) “[S]ection 1387 limits the number of times the prosecution may dismiss and refile charges.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) “Although the text of section 1387 is ‘hardly pellucid’ (Burris v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1012,

2023“These are questions of statutory interpretation that we must consider de novo.” (People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71 ; see also People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 [reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard].) The Two-Dismissal Rule Under Section 1387, Subdivision (a) “[S]ection 1387 limits the number of times the prosecution may dismiss and refile charges.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) “Although the text of section 1387 is ‘hardly pellucid’ (Burris v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1012,

2023“These are questions of statutory interpretation that we must consider de novo.” (People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71 ; see also People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 [reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard].) The Two-Dismissal Rule Under Section 1387, Subdivision (a) “[S]ection 1387 limits the number of times the prosecution may dismiss and refile charges.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) “Although the text of section 1387 is ‘hardly pellucid’ (Burris v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1012,

2023“These are questions of statutory interpretation that we must consider de novo.” (People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71 ; see also People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 [reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard].) The Two-Dismissal Rule Under Section 1387, Subdivision (a) “[S]ection 1387 limits the number of times the prosecution may dismiss and refile charges.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) “Although the text of section 1387 is ‘hardly pellucid’ (Burris v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1012,

2023“These are questions of statutory interpretation that we must consider de novo.” (People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71 ; see also People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 [reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard].) The Two-Dismissal Rule Under Section 1387, Subdivision (a) “[S]ection 1387 limits the number of times the prosecution may dismiss and refile charges.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) “Although the text of section 1387 is ‘hardly pellucid’ (Burris v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1012,

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].)” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477 .) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, “‘“‘we identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. [Citations.]’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].)” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477 .) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, “‘“‘we identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. [Citations.]’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].)” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477 .) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, “‘“‘we identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. [Citations.]’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].)” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477 .) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, “‘“‘we identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. [Citations.]’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].)” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477 .) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, “‘“‘we identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. [Citations.]’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].)” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477 .) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, “‘“‘we identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. [Citations.]’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].)” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477 .) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, “‘“‘we identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. [Citations.]’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].)” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477 .) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, “‘“‘we identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. [Citations.]’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954

2013(Dolan-King v. Rancho Santa Fe Assn. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 965, 974 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 280 ] (Dolan-King I).) These questions of law are addressed de novo, based on interpretation of the statutes and governing documents.

2013(Dolan-King v. Rancho Santa Fe Assn. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 965, 974 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 280 ] (Dolan-King I).) These questions of law are addressed de novo, based on interpretation of the statutes and governing documents.

2021If none does, and the sole remaining issue is one of law, it is the duty of the trial court to determine the issue of law. [Citation.]” ’ (Suzuki v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 263, 269 .) ‘As a corollary of the de novo review standard, the appellate court may affirm a summary judgment on any correct legal theory, as long as the parties had an adequate opportunity to address the theory in the trial court. [Citation.]’ (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs (The Rutter Group 1989) ¶ 8:168.5a, pp. 8-98.3 to 8-98.4 (rev. # 1, 2001).)” (California School of Cul

2003If none does, and the sole remaining issue is one of law, it is the duty of the trial court to determine the issue of law. [Citation.]’ ” (Suzuki v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 263, 269 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ].) “As a corollary of the de novo review standard, the appellate court may affirm a summary judgment on any correct legal theory, as long as the parties had an adequate opportunity to address the theory in the trial court. [Citation.]” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs (The Rutter Group 1989) ¶ 8:168.5a, pp. 8-98.3 to 8-98.4 (rev. # 1, 2001).) CSCA

2021(See Wechsler v. Superior Court, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at pp. 391- 392 [“[t]he weight of authority supports that where, as here, the relevant facts are undisputed, a de novo review standard applies to a section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) challenge to a claimed appearance of partiality”]; Briggs v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 312, 319 ; Flier v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 165, 171 ; see also People v. Superior Court (Olivo) (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [“[w]here the underlying material facts are not in dispute, we review the trial court’s order denying a peremptory challenge de n

2014(See Briggs v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 312, 319 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 445 ]; Sincavage v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 224, 230 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 ]; Flier v. Superior Court, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 171 ; see also Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 382-388 & 383, fn. 8 [holding independent review standard applies in the arbitrator appearance-of-bias context, and noting the issue has been the subject of conflicting opinions in the judicial context].) II.

2016(Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6 ; Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 10 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081 (Schifando).) However, we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. ( Evans, supra, at p. 6 .) We apply a de novo review standard, and are not bound by the court's stated reasons.

2016(See Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081 .) We apply a de novo review standard, and are not bound by the court's stated reasons.

2015(Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1055 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 516 , 128 P.3d 713 ]; Save Westwood Village, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 143 .) We are not bound by the court’s findings and conduct an independent review of the entire record.

2015(Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1055 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 516 , 128 P.3d 713 ]; Save Westwood Village, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 143 .) We are not bound by the court’s findings and conduct an independent review of the entire record.

2015(See Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 25-26 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 329 , 230 P.3d 1117 ].) On appeal, we apply a de novo review standard to determine whether the parties satisfied their burdens under sections 425.16 and 425.17.

2015(See Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 25-26 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 329 , 230 P.3d 1117 ].) On appeal, we apply a de novo review standard to determine whether the parties satisfied their burdens under sections 425.16 and 425.17.

2013(Ekstrom v. Marquesa at Monarch Beach Homeowners Assn. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 ].) “Generally, the trial court’s decision to grant or deny [declaratory or injunctive relief] will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly shown its discretion was abused.” (Ibid.) The parties do not dispute that a de novo review standard applies, since the decisive underlying facts are undisputed, raising only questions of law regarding the submitted issues.

2013(Ekstrom v. Marquesa at Monarch Beach Homeowners Assn. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 ].) “Generally, the trial court’s decision to grant or deny [declaratory or injunctive relief] will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly shown its discretion was abused.” (Ibid.) The parties do not dispute that a de novo review standard applies, since the decisive underlying facts are undisputed, raising only questions of law regarding the submitted issues.