Civil Procedure

Plaintiff served a notice of levy on Zions' agent for service of process, Corporation Service Company (CSC), attempting to levy on funds the judgment debtor held in two bank accounts at Zions.  CSC rejected the levy because someone had underscored, by hand, the name of a corporate defendant in the caption of the notice of levy.  CSC thought that was… Read More

The common law rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies to PAGA suits.  Nothing in the PAGA statutes clearly or unequivocally evince an intent to abrogate that well-established rule in PAGA suits.  Absence of an express first-filed suit requirement in the statute is insufficient to show such an intent.  Invoking the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction rule, the trial court properly stayed this… Read More

Defendant moved for summary judgment, then made a Rule 68 offer of judgment in the amount of $50,000.  Less than 14 days later, the court granted the summary judgment motion but didn't immediately enter judgment for defendant.  Plaintiff accepted the Rule 68 offer.  Held, the acceptance was effective.  Under Rule 68, an offer of judgment remains open for 14 days. … Read More

A wrongful death claim under federal maritime law accrues on or after the date of death, not earlier when the victim (soon-to-be deceased) learns of his illness or injury.  The statute accrues on date of discovery of the illness, however, on claims under survival statutes that abrogate the common law rule that tort claims died with the plaintiff.  Where the… Read More

Four federal statutes bar discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability or other protected characteristics by recipients of federal financial assistance; namely Title VI and IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act.  None of these acts expressly grant private rights of action to victims of discrimination that violates those Acts' provisions. … Read More

Following Roes, 1-2  v. SFBSC Management, LLC (9th Cir. 2019) 944 F.3d 1035, this decision holds that when a class action settles before class certification, the district court may not apply a presumption of fairness to the settlement based on arms-length negotiation between experienced counsel.  Instead, the court mus employ extra caution and more rigorous scrutiny in evaluating a pre-certification… Read More

Under the Madrid Protocol implemented in 15 USC 1141 et seq, and under 15 USC 1057, the holder of a trademark registered in a foreign country can obtain registration of the trademark in the United States as well, and obtain the benefit of a constructive use date pegged to the date of the foreign registration or application for US registration. … Read More

If a foreign sovereign entity is subject to suit under one of the exceptions to immunity otherwise conferred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the Act does not affect the substantive law governing the entity's liability.  Instead, 28 USC 1606 provides that when not entitled to immunity, "the foreign state shall be liable in the same manner and to the… Read More

If a statute prescribes a time limit within which a petition, appeal or other pleading must be filed, it will be treated as jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states that the time limit is jurisdictional.  Jurisdictional time limits cannot be waived or forfeited, must be raised by courts sua sponte, and do not allow for equitable exceptions.  Here, the Court… Read More

Defendant residential care facility's arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable as (i) it was a contract of adhesion, (ii) it incorporated the AAA rules but no copy of them was provided, and (iii) the facility required a patient undergoing an acute psychotic incident, who could not concentrate for more than 10-20 seconds to sign the clause.  The clause was substantively unconscionable… Read More

An apex deposition of the head of a governmental department is allowed only with the agency head is shown to have direct personal factual (as opposed to legal) knowledge of information pertinent to material issues in litigation and the agency head's information is not available through another source.  Here, an apex deposition of the former district attorney was not allowed… Read More

On remand from the US Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Van Buren v. United States (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1648, the Ninth Circuit reaffirms its holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction barring LinkedIn from preventing HiQ from "scraping" data from public LinkedIn posts by threats of suit or technological blocking… Read More

After judgment was entered against defendant, was set aside by the district court, and then reinstated on appeal, defendant filed motion for relief from the judgment again based on fraud on the court (Rule 60(d)) and based on newly discovered evidence and fraud (Rule 60(b)(2), (3)).  Plaintiff's judgment was for lost profits on its antitrust claims, but the new evidence… Read More

Distinguishing Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1702, Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC (9th Cir. 2020) 983 F.3d 1115, and Sperring v. LLR, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 995 F.3d 680, which involved voluntary dismissals in order to appeal from class certification orders or orders compelling arbitration, as to which Rule 23(f) or 9 USC 16 prescribe different appellate… Read More

In this case, plaintiff sued defendant under the CLRA for not disclosing the amount of its potential or likely emergency room evaluation and management services fee.  The court concluded that the complaint adequately alleged that defendant owed a duty to disclose the charge as that information was within its sole knowledge and not readily available to its patients.  The complaint… Read More

A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a class action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act unless the complaint names 100 class members.  (Floyd v. American Honda Motor Co. (9th Cir, 2020) 966 F.3d 1027.)  Similarly, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an MMWA case unless no claim in the amount in controversy on each claim exceeds $25… Read More

The trial court correctly denied this lawyer-defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion, finding that this suit to collect the agreed price for its services was not based on protected speech.  The fraud and concealment claim brought against the lawyer was for misrepresentations and concealments about the client-buyer's financial condition which induced plaintiff to enter into the services contract.  Communications at the pre-contract stage… Read More

Relying heavily on Anglo Irish Bank Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, this decision holds that a South Korean parent corporation is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California based on activities its California subsidiary took in California in what the complaint charged was an antitrust conspiracy to fix spot market prices of fuel in California.  For personal… Read More

Employer's arbitration clause was unenforceable because it was unconscionable.  The clause was a mandatory, non-negotiable requirement of employment.  It was procedurally unconscionable because it was given to plaintiff only in English, which he cannot read, and without a schedule of the arbitration fees he could be charged.  It was substantively unconscionable because it allowed the arbitrator to shift attorney fees… Read More

This decision affirms all but $42 million of a $344 million judgment against Johnson under the UCL and FAL for misleading advertising and concealment of the serious risks entailed in using its pelvic mesh product to cure certain conditions in women.  The trial court applied the proper test in determining whether Johnson's instructions for use and other advertising would mislead… Read More