Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Appeals

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.

On a prior appeal in the same case, the Court of Appeal had held that Tyler’s judicial defense of the 2007 Amendment to her parents' Trust, an amendment that she had procured through undue influence constituted a direct contest of the Trust and that Tyler lacked probable cause to defendant that amendment.  Key v. Tyler (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 505, 510. … Read More

A stay order entered by a district court is appealable as a final judgment under 28 USC 1291 if it effectively places the plaintiff out of court.  An indefinite stay to be ended only upon the occurrence of an external event that is not time delimited.  If the stay lasts 18 months or longer, the stay is not automatically appealable,… Read More

Although a stipulated judgment is generally not appealable, appeal is allowed when  “consent was merely given to facilitate an appeal following adverse determination of a critical issue.”  An “adverse determination” of “a critical issue” is not an affirmative requirement or limitation on the doctrine.  The only limitation is that the judgment must dispose of all causes of action.  The stipulated… Read More

Appellant's opening brief stricken and appeal dismissed where the brief cited two nonexistent cases (and counsel could not explain why at oral argument), misstated the facts and holdings of several other decisions, and cited only a few other authorities without explaining how they supported the appellant's contentions. Read More

This decision holds that the Court of Appeals the de novo standard of review to an order denying a nonsignatory's motion to compel arbitration by invoking equitable estoppel.  It also holds that 14 C.F.R. § 253.10 which forbids air carriers from including forum selection clauses in their contracts of carriage does not forbid an airline from relying on an arbitration… Read More

Under 28 USC 1292(a)(3), a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from a district court's interlocutory decree determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to the admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.  This decision holds that the provision allows an interlocutory appeal from an order denying summary judgment based on the waiver the… Read More

An appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record (J.B. Aguerre, Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 6, 15-16), including grounds not raised by the respondent, and even if the respondent does not file a brief (Fleming Distribution Co. v. Younan (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 73, 84, fn. 8; Smith v. Smith (2012)… Read More

If a jury instruction contains “an incorrect statement of law, the party harmed by that instruction need not have objected to the instruction or proposed a correct instruction of his [or her] own in order to preserve the right to complain of the erroneous instruction on appeal." Read More

Water Code 13330(b) requires any appeal from a regional board's decision to be filed within 30 days and expressly prohibits judicial review except in accord with section 13330.  This decision holds that an untimely filed appeal from the regional board's decision must be dismissed even if the appellant claims the regional board lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it rendered its… Read More

After Habelt filed a class action for securities fraud against iRhythm, Miss. Public Retirement System was appointed the class representative pursuant to the PSLRA.  The Retirement System's amended complaint was dismissed without leave to amend.  The Retirement System did not appeal from the dismissal.  The mere fact that Habelt remained a name in the case caption didn't confer standing on… Read More

A party may appeal from denial of its summary judgment motion by stipulating to entry of judgment after and based on the denial of the summary judgment motion and making clear that it is doing so only for the purpose of appealing the denial of summary judgment--because there was no full record developed at trial that could be said to… Read More

Following prior 9th Circuit precedent, this decision holds that an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine--unless the order denies the motion because the claim fits within one of CP 425.17's exceptions to the Anti-SLAPP statute--but in concurrences two of the panel's three judges urge the full court to overrule the prior… Read More

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

A post-trial motion under Rule 50 is not required to preserve for appellate review a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment.  By contrast, a post-trial motion is required if the summary judgment motion was denied on sufficiency of the evidence grounds since the evidentiary record may be (and usually is) different at trial. Read More

Plaintiff appealed adverse judgment claiming the trial court erred in refusing a jury instruction regarding an adverse inference from the opposing party's concealing evidence during discovery.  This decision holds that the plaintiff forfeited the issue on appeal by misstating the record in her brief--asserting that the trial court had found that the defendant improperly concealed documents, when the trial court… Read More

This decision holds that an unsecured creditor that was the chair of the committee of unsecured creditors in East Coast's Chapter 11 proceeding lacked Article III standing to appeal from the bankruptcy court's order awarding the Chapter 11 trustee the maximum allowable fees.  The confirmed Chapter 11 plan provided for the debtor's reorganization and full payment of all allowed claims,… Read More

1 2 3 6