Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Civil Procedure

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.

The no voluntary payment clause in plaintiffs' insurance policies barred its recovery for costs it incurred in complying with a settlement agreement and consent order with the government to remediate mercury contamination of water supplies.  Plaintiff had notified defendant of its receiving a notice of the federal government's claim for natural resources damages from the contamination, but then failed to… Read More

This case denies American Pipe tolling of the statute of limitations on claims for statutory penalties under the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (Civ. Code 1786.50).  The act clearly states that statutory penalties cannot be recovered in a class action, so that affected consumers could not reasonably rely on the pendency of a prior class action to protect their right… Read More

Most time deadline statutes and rules are now construed as non-jurisdictional unless Congress has clearly stated otherwise.  The 12-year statute of limitations on quiet title actions against the United States (28 U.S.C. §2409a(g)) is a claims processing rule, not a jurisdictional statute.  The time limit appears in a section separate from the Quiet Title Act's jurisdictional provision and does not… Read More

Under CCP 904.1(a)(12), a monetary sanctions award of $5,000 or more is immediately appealable.  However, an order for an issue sanction on a discovery motion is not immediately appealable.  Even when the order awards both monetary and issue sanctions, the issue sanctions portion of the order is not appealable unless the two sanctions are intimately intertwined. (See Mileikowsky v. Tenet… Read More

This decision affirms a summary judgment on plaintiff's antitrust claim against a competing fast fashion retailer which had refused to buy from clothing vendors unless they quit selling to plaintiff.  Plaintiff failed to present evidence of a horizontal agreement among the clothing vendors to not sell to plaintiff.  A vertical agreement between defendant and each vendor was not a per… Read More

This decision affirms an order disqualifying plaintiff's attorney in a case arising from a dispute among the three principals of a closely held corporation.  Plaintiff sued the other two principals as one of those defendants' wives.  Using the corporation's computers, plaintiff accessed emails the wife sent her husband over the corporation's email server.  The decision holds that the trial court… Read More

Although the FAA (9 USC 3) appears to require a district court to stay pending court proceedings when it compels arbitration, binding 9th Circuit precedent holds that, instead, a district court may dismiss the litigation if it compels arbitration of all claims raised in the case.  See Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s,Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 2014).  The two-judge concurrence… Read More

Reaching the same result as Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 129, this decision holds that plaintiff's individual PAGA claims (i.e., those which are based on Lab. Code violations affecting the plaintiff) must be arbitrated.  However, representative PAGA claims based on Lab. Code violations affecting only employees other than the plaintiff are not subject to arbitration,… Read More

Summary judgment for defendant employer was reversed in this disability discrimination in employment case.  Defendant tentatively decided to lay plaintiff off before she became disabled, but didn't follow through with that decision until after plaintiff suffered a disabling injury.  Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant's concern with plaintiff's disability led to… Read More

The court that wrote Inns-by-the-Sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 688 affirms summary judgment for the defendant insurer in the COVID-19 case.  While the plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to show that COVID-19 airborne particles might have caused physical damage to the motel, the plaintiff couldn't show that its business losses were due to that contamination rather than… Read More

The district court correctly dismissed this suit, invoking Younger abstention.  Plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendant district attorney from prosecuting it in state court for employing a vendor to make harassing collection calls in violation of state law.  The four Younger factors all weighed in favor of abstention.  The state action was ongoing as no proceedings of substance had yet… Read More

Under the state's False Claims Act and Insurance Frauds Prevention Act, a qui tam plaintiff must file the complaint under seal and send it to the Attorney General or Insuance Commissioner and district attorney.  Only after those entities decide not to intervene and take over prosecution of the action may the plaintiff serve the defendant(s) and proceed to litigate the… Read More

Summary judgment was properly granted to defendant in this case.  Plaintiff's decedent was employed by an independent contractor defendant hired for highway repairs.  The contract with the contractor expressly delegated maintaining worker safety to the contractor.  That the defendant retained authority to approve work quality and acceptability and the manner of performance of the work did not change the applicability… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment in favor of the owner and prime contractor and against the plaintiff, who worked for a demolition subcontractor.  Plaintiff was injured by an unknown assailant in a walkway that the owner and prime had left unfenced to allow neighborhood residents access to a bus stop.  The owner and prime exercised actual control over security… Read More

Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815 nixes only nonmutual collateral estoppel from an arbitration award.  Here, the same parties to the arbitration award, or individuals in privity with them, raised the same issues that the arbitrator had adjudicated, in court in connection with a post-confirmation (and post appeal from the confirmation) motion to amend the judgment to add… 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

Estate of Cornelious (1984) 35 Cal.3d 461 remains good law.  Under Probate Code 7540(a), a child is conclusively presumed to be issue of the man married to the child's mother, so long as the two were cohabiting at the time of conception and of birth.  Such a child is not allowed, at least for inheritance purposes, to prove that he… Read More

1 9 10 11 12 13 59