Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Abuse of Discretion

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Although recognizing that a minority of decisions apply a substantial evidence standard of review on appeal from an order granting or enforcement to a forum selection clause, this decision adopts what it says is the majority rule applying, instead, an abuse of discretion standard of review.  In this case, the contract included not only a clause selecting Illinois as the… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff's expert witness' opinion regarding the accused diabetes drug's causing an increased risk of heart failure in diabetics.  The expert relied on only one test, the authors of which noted that its results as to heart failure were anomalous and required comparison with other tests.  The expert also did not… Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment (which confirmed an arbitration award in plaintiff's favor against two LLCs) to add two individual defendants as the LLCs' alter egos.  Two elements are needed to prove alter ego statues:  unity of interest and ownership and inequity resulting from treating the acts of the corporate entities… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff its attorney fees in opposing defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike.  Plaintiff's claim arose from false representations the defendant developer made to the Rocklin City Council about his ability to develop a financially viable family theme park in the Rocklin Quarry.  Though the representations were made in an official proceeding,… Read More

Corp. Code 1604 provides for an award of reasonable attorney fees to a shareholder if the corporation refuses "without justification" his demand to inspect corporate records.as required under Corp. Code 1601.  This decision holds that "without justification" means at least not well grounded in fact and law.  Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the shareholder… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction under the CLRA against defendants continuing to sell puppies which they falsely claimed were healthy but in fact were not and died in many cases within days after sale.  Defendants' main argument on appeal was that the evidence didn't show that they sold the puppies that plaintiffs'… Read More

Doubling down on LaSalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, this decision holds that plaintiff's counsel owes an ethical and legal obligation to notify the defendant's counsel (if known) of the defendant's failure to timely respond to the complaint and plaintiff's intention to seek a default.  Here, plaintiff not only didn't notify defendant's counsel, but also arranged to serve the… Read More

Though it did most other things right, the district court erred in expressly employing the wrong standard to decide whether the class action settlement in this case was fair, just, and equitable.  In a pre-certification settlement, like this one, the district court may not presume the settlement is reasonable but must instead exercise heightened scrutiny.  Application of the wrong standard… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying private attorney general fees to Malibu homeowners who successfully challenged a proposed special assessment to protect a beach and nearby homes from erosion.  The trial court correctly estimated the homeowners' potential benefit from the suit as the amount of assessments they sought to avoid over the 20-year period of the… Read More

The trial court in San Francisco abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to transfer this wrongful death case to San Diego where the accident occurred and most witnesses reside.  The fact that the Legislature authorized remote trial testimony through July 2023 is not a favor that the trial court could properly invoke to ignore the fact that most witnesses… Read More

Plaintiff leased a commercial property from defendant.  The lease gave plaintiff an option to buy the property at its fair market value.  Plaintiff exercised the option but the parties disagreed about the fair market value.  After much litigation, the trial court set the price and ordered the parties to perform, but before they could  do so, the Department of Transportation… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiff's outside counsel firm, Pillsbury, on the ground that Pillsbury had hired two attorneys who eight years before had been associates at Sedgwick and while there had represented some of the defendant insurers in other coverage disputes involving different insureds.  Defendants' evidence failed to show that… Read More

The female complainant in a university's disciplinary proceeding against a male student for alleged sexual assault on the complainant was not an indispensable party to the male student's mandate proceeding against the university for violating his due process rights in its proceedings which resulted in disciplining him.  While the complainant had an interest in the mandate proceeding, complete relief could… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in staying this case under CCP 410.30 on the ground of forum non conveniens.  The complaint sought a declaration regarding the plaintiffs' duty to defend and indemnify defendants under various insurance policies for opioid litigation brought against defendants throughout the country.  There was already an on-going coverage action involving plaintiff and defendant… Read More

Despite the fact that CCP 222.5(a) was amended in 2018 to provide that a trial court "shall" allow a party to make a brief statement of the case before commencement of voir dire, this decision holds that the trial judge may exercise discretion to control the content of the pre-voir dire statement, and that this judge acted within the bounds… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that neither party prevailed in this action against a subcontractor and its bonding company.  The plaintiff city won on liability but was awarded only nominal damages though it had sought $3.4 million.  The trial court could properly conclude that the win on damages was not a total victory for the… Read More

1 2 3