Civil Procedure

This decision affirms an order in coordinated suits against Uber by women allegedly assaulted by Uber drivers, staying suit in California on forum non conveniens grounds to allow the plaintiffs to sue instead in the states where the assaults allegedly occurred.  The trial court properly determined that those states were "suitable" forums based on Uber's stated willingness to stipulate to… Read More

Plaintiff sued defendant for a sexual assault which occurred during a business trip to Florida in 2022.  Plaintiff was a Colorado resident but was CEO of a California corporation in which defendant's venture capital firm had made a large investment.  The decision holds that defendant was not subject to specific jurisdiction in California because all the events regarding the sexual… Read More

A claim under the Administrative Procedure Act that a federal administrative agency's regulation is contrary to the enabling statute must be filed within 6 years after the claim accrues.  28 USC 2401.  This decision holds that the claim accrues and the six years begins to run when the plaintiff is injured by the challenged regulation--since before then, the plaintiff lacks… Read More

The district court abused its discretion in certifying classes in this suit by plaintiffs who had accepted defendants' agreements for lump sum payments in return for the plaintiffs' rights to receive payments over time under structured settlements from prior litigation.  In every state, defendants' agreements had to be approved by a state court, some with more, some with less stringent… Read More

In seeking a preliminary injunction against an employer's actions pending proceedings before the NLRB, that agency must meet the same four traditional factors outlined in  Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (2008) 555 U. S. 7:  likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities in plaintiff's favor, and injunction in public interest.  In simply allowing courts… Read More

To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show it has suffered or is likely to suffer an injury in fact and causation--that the injury in fact is caused by the defendant's allegedly wrongful act and therefore is redressable by injunction or damages.  Causation is simply established when the plaintiff challenges a government regulation that governs the plaintiff, but more… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling objections to questions defense attorney asked plaintiff's future medical damages expert about whether plaintiff's future medical expenses would be covered by Medicare once plaintiff reached 65 and whether Medicare insurers paid full billed medical rates.  Under Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, plaintiff can only… Read More

The Court of Appeal issues a writ of mandate directing the trial court to enter summary judgment for the defendant in this personal injury action by a subcontractor's employee.  Under the Privette doctrine, the hirer of an independent contractor is generally not liable for injuries suffered by the contractor's or its subcontractors' employees on the job.  To invoke the doctrine… Read More

After the Creek Fire, SoCal Edison's law department directed an investigation, conducted mostly by non-lawyer claims department personnel, of SoCal Edison's possible role in causing the fire.  In later litigation, insurers of burnt homes sought production of emails between the claims department personnel and in-house experts or other witnesses sent as part of the internal investigation.  This decision holds that… Read More

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 district court has inherent authority to stay before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.  The stay order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. When deciding whether to issue a docket management stay, the district court must weigh: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or… 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

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in bifurcating and trying first plaintiff's UCL claim even though the claim was based on an alleged FDCPA violation and defendant was entitled to a jury trial of the FDCPA claim.  The UCL claim is equitable.  Equitable first is the rule in California.  Also, that procedure serves the UCL's purpose of affording… Read More

Affirming a summary judgment, this opinion finds that the city was immune from liability under Gov. Code 831.4 on plaintiff's claim that he tripped over a wire cable hanging between two posts on either side of the entrance to a path down to a lake, designed to keep vehicles from using the path.  The path was used for the recreational… Read More

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U. S. C.§ 25b(b)(1)(B), the National Bank Act preempts state law, as applied to a national bank, only if (a) the state law discriminates in favor of state banks and against national banks, or (b) “prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers,” the standard articulated in Barnett Bank… Read More

Although the interplay between CCP 664.6's two sentences is not entirely clear, this decision holds that if a settlement is entered into before the court and a motion to enforce the settlement is brought while the action is still pending, the court retains jurisdiction to rule on the motion to enforce the settlement even if the parties have not agreed… Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in denying ex-wife's application to renew a DVRO injunction against ex-husband without properly evaluating the three factors set out in Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275:  The factual predicate for the original DVRO.  Any significant change in circumstances that occurred after the DVRO was issued.  Whether, and how much, the DVRO burdens the… Read More

Describing but not resolving several areas of ambiguity and conflicting authority in applying H&S Code 1799.110, this decision holds instead that a nurse anesthetist and trauma unit nurse lacked the specialized knowledge required to opine on the standard of care applicable to an intensive care unit neurosurgeon deciding whether a severe traumatic brain injury requires immediate surgical intervention, whether that… Read More

This decision affirms an order denying enforcement of the arbitration clause in USC's employment contract on the ground that it is unconscionable in applying to any dispute (whether or not arising from the employment relationship), in being of perpetual duration (providing that it continued in effect after termination of employment unless both parties agreed otherwise), and lacking mutuality in requiring… 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