Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Civil Procedure

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.

Gov. Code 53069.4 allows local governments to enforce their ordinances through an administrative process for imposing and collecting fines.  Unlike most administrative proceedings that may be reviewed only by a writ of administrative mandamus under CCP 1094.5, a citizen can appeal to the superior court from a decision by that administrative process within 20 days after the decision. (Gov. Code… Read More

Defendant was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California though he was not an officer of dmarcian USA and demarcian EU, for which he worked, was a separate entity.  By publicly presenting himself as a leader of dmarcian, a company headquartered in California, having dmarcian EU’s web address automatically route to dmarcian’s Web site, administered in California, and receiving prospective… Read More

Interpreting a nondisclosure agreement under English law, this decision holds that a clause stating that "this agreement shall terminate on a date 2 years from the date hereof" ended the entire agreement after two years, including the defendant's obligation not to disclose the trade secret information it had learned from plaintiff during the existence of the agreement.  This interpretation was… Read More

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), when the plaintiff sues on a federal cause of action and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction, the federal courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it has minimum contacts with the United States as a whole under the same generally applicable tests… Read More

California could not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a Virginia law firm and its lawyers.  The lawyers had done nothing to avail themselves of California's benefits.  They had a website with minimum interactivity not directed to California residents in particular but rather to veterans throughout the country.  The lawyers had Virginia bar licenses, not California ones.  Though plaintiff (their client)… Read More

An employer that gives preferential treatment toward a supervisor’s sexual or romantic partner does not thereby discriminate on the basis of sex against other employees of the same sex as the paramour because it doesn't satisfy Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731's test--would employer have acted differently if employee was of the opposite sex.  As used in… Read More

Class action settlements reached before class certification face a high hurdle to approval.  Here, the district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement of claims that Tinder violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code 52) by charging those over 29 more to use its premium services than younger users.  The district court undervalued the worth of the claims… Read More

A director of a nonprofit public benefit corporation who brings an action on behalf of that corporation loses standing to pursue its claims if the director is not reelected to the office of director at any point during the litigation.  Here, plaintiff was not re-elected, lost standing, and his suit was properly dismissed. Read More

The California Arbitration Act governs procedure in state court in compelling arbitration even when the FAA governs the substantive rules regarding arbitration.  Under CCP 1281.2(c), a trial court has discretion to deny arbitration if a party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action with a third party, "arising out of the same transaction or… Read More

The FAA applies to an arbitration clause in an employment agreement involved in interstate commerce and preempts California Labor Code 229 which forbids arbitration of wage and hour claims.  The parties did not elect out of FAA preemption by a choice of law clause in the employment contract generally choosing California law, but not specifically choosing California law regarding arbitration… Read More

A statement of decision entered in earlier litigation brought against the plaintiff in this suit was a sufficiently final determination to be accorded claim preclusive effect even though the parties thereafter settled and obtained a stipulated order from a different judge vacating key portions of the statement of decision.  The opinion contains a lengthy discussion of authorities on the point… Read More

Following Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 and Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1266,  this decision holds that a plaintiff who has medical insurance but chooses to use out-of-plan doctors for his care is treated for damage purposes as if he were uninsured and may submit the doctors' bills as evidence… Read More

The International Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards contains a self-executing direction for the courts of the signatory states to compel arbitration of agreements falling within the Convention's scope.  Since that provision is self-executing and not an "Act of Congress," the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not reverse preempt it.  Accordingly, the Convention preempts Washington state law that… Read More

This decision affirms denial of the employer-defendant's motion to compel arbitration under an agreement that delegated arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.  The arbitration agreement and its delegation clause were both unconscionable for the same reasons.  Procedurally, the agreement was presented as an adhesion contract that employees had to sign to retain employment.  Also the agreement was nine pages of 10… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment, finding that a question of fact exists as to whether defendant insurer acted reasonably to settle this catastrophic injury case within the insured's $25,000 policy limits.  During the week the plaintiff's policy limits demand remained open, defendant did not transmit the offer to its insured for his consent.  Defendant also repeatedly failed to send… Read More

1 26 27 28 29 30 59