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
Statistical evidence is admissible to establish predominance under FRCivP 23(b)(3) if that evidence would be admissible in an individual action on the same claim, the statistical evidence is linked to the plaintiffs' theory of liability and the use of averaging assumptions does not conceal the variations that otherwise would defeat class certification. Here, plaintiffs' statistical evidence satisfied those three tests. … Read More
Following Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170 and E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. Moses & Singer, LLP (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1140, this decision reverses a summary judgment for the defendant attorneys in this malpractice action based on the allegation that the attorneys failed to warn plaintiff of the disadvantages of bringing the underlying suit in California where the defendant could… Read More
Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 28(b)(5) grants crime victims the right to “refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the victim consents.” This decision holds that this provision which was… Read More
This decision reverses a summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The summary judgment was granted on the ground that the defendant had fewer than 15 employees, the minimum threshold for application of the ADA. However, the decision holds that there was a triable issue of fact whether the defendant, a Nevada law limited partnership, was… Read More
Mendoza was president of a local union. The international ATU imposed a trusteeship on that local union ousting Mendoza and the local union's executive board members having discovered suspected financial malfeasance. Mendoza filed an action against the ATU on his own behalf. The ATU removed it to federal court, claiming NRLA preemption. While the first suit was pending Mendoza filed… Read More
The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (49 USC 41713) preempted plaintiff's tort claims arising from defendant's decision not to use plaintiff's software that offered certain in flight deals to airline passengers. Refusing to follow the Ninth Circuit's minority view (Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir. 1998) 160 F.3d 1259), this decision holds that in flight deals are part… Read More
Following Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, this decision holds that MICRA's one-year limitations on medical malpractice claims and $250,000 limit on non-economic damages did not apply to this elderly woman who was sexually assaulted by the defendant elder care facility's male attendant, based on a jury's finding that the defendant was not only guilty not only of general… Read More
In Vaden v. Discover Bank (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1262, the Court held that under 9 USC 4, to determine whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration, the court should "look through" the arbitration issue and determine whether the court would have jurisdiction of the underlying dispute in the absence of an arbitration agreement. This decision… Read More
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial in this case where the writers for the series Columbo sued the studio that produced those shows. The trial court correctly concluded--only after the jury ruled--that it was for the court to interpret the contract between the parties and that the crucial term "photoplay" included each TV… Read More
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that neither party prevailed or was entitled to an attorney fee award under the Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code 5975(e)) or the private attorney general statute (CCP 1021.5) in this suit by a condo owner against the condo association. Although plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction and prevailed in forcing the condo… Read More
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not denying defendant's summary judgment motion for alleged defects in its separate statement of undisputed facts. Though a trial court may deny a summary judgment motion on that ground, it is not compelled to do so. Here, the alleged defect was stating several facts together in a single "undisputed fact" and… Read More
Appeals from probate orders did not automatically stay the parties' ability to settle their dispute. Even though their settlement required dismissal of the pending appeals, the settlement was effective and did not violate the automatic stay on appeal under CCP 916. Read More
