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.

Under CCP 2025.295, the deposition of a plaintiff can take no longer than 7 hours if (a) the action is for injury or illness from mesothelioma, and (b) a doctor certifies that the plaintiff suffers from mesothelioma raising a substantial medical doubt that plaintiff will survive beyond six months.  If more than 20 defendants appear at the deposition, the court… Read More

The res judicata/collateral estoppel effect of a post-foreclosure unlawful detainer judgment extends only to proper conduct of the trustee's sale, not to claims of earlier wrongs committed by the lender that purportedly led eventually to the foreclosure.  Thus, here, the unlawful detainer judgment against the borrowers did not preclude them from later suing on a claim that the lender had… Read More

Under CCP 12, courts must use the "anniversary method" of computing statutes of limitation periods, excluding the first day of the period and including the last (unless it is a holiday or weekend).  Thus, for a personal injury suit by a minor, the limitations period begins on the minor's 18th birthday.  That day is excluded, and the 2-year personal injury… Read More

When a plaintiff voluntarily dismissed part of its case without prejudice well in advance of the district court's involuntary dismissal of the rest of the suit with prejudice, the judgment of dismissal is appealable (see Schoenfeld v. Babbitt (11th Cir. 1999) 168 F.3d 1257, 1265–66) even though it would not be if the voluntary dismissal came after the court's ruling… Read More

Term of 998 offer requiring plaintiff to indemnify defendant against claims by third parties on the same allegations as the complaint rendered the 998 offer ineffective to shift costs after defendant was dismissed from the action.  Though it was understandable that defendant wanted preclude wrongful death claims by heirs of the plaintiff who claimed defendant was liable for his mesothelium… Read More

In a case involving a retaliatory firing of a deputy fire marshal, the appellate court affirms the judgment finding the defendant city liable, but reverses the award of $2 million for past noneconomic damages and $1.5 million in future noneconomic damages as excessive given the slight evidence of emotional distress, the fact that plaintiff found other employment, the fact that… Read More

The nature of the right sued upon and not the form of action nor the relief demanded determines the applicability of the statute of limitations.  So, in this case where plaintiff alleged that the seller's disclosures regarding real property sold to plaintiff were inaccurate or incomplete, the action was governed by the 3-year limitations period for fraud even though the… Read More

The trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendant in this invasion of privacy suit which alleged that the defendant neighbor invaded plaintiff's privacy by audio and video recordings made by defendant's security cameras and recorders of goings on in plaintiff's backyard.  The opinion states that defendant had a legitimate need for the security equipment as she was a media… Read More

The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate the arbitration award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law.  The arbitrator properly reconsidered his initial award and reentered an award based on other grounds after defendant's criminal conviction for fraud was vacated for retrial.  The arbitrator properly drew negative inferences from defendant's invoking the Fifth Amendment in response… Read More

This decision refuses to overrule the assignor estoppel doctrine which prevents the assignor of a patent from challenging the patent's validity if doing so would contradict the assignor's express or implied warranty that the patent was good at the time the assignor sold it.  However, the estoppel does not apply when the assignment is made before a patent application is… Read More

Employer sued the union and its workers for RICO violations, claiming that the workers and the union had conspired to fraudulently furnish timesheets reporting hours that were not actually worked, causing employer to overpay the workers by $5.3 million.  Over a strong dissent, this opinion holds that the suit is preempted by section 301 of the LMRA because the collective… Read More

The tenant served his summary judgment motion one day late in this UD action, six days before the hearing rather than the required seven for service by express mail.  Nevertheless, the the judgment is affirmed.  Plaintiff filed an opposition.  Though complaining about the short service, it did not claim any prejudice.  Also, there was no record of oral proceedings at… Read More

Each class member must establish Article III standing in order to recover relief in a case in federal court.  Here, TransUnion included incorrect OFAC terrorist information in its credit files on 8,000 class members but issued credit reports to third parties with the incorrect OFAC information only as to 1,600 of the class members.  This decision holds that only the… Read More

CCP 527.8(o) allows a respondent in a workplace harassment injunction action one mandatory continuance in which to respond to the petition.  This decision holds that when the respondent has already filed a written response to the petition, 527.8(o) is inapplicable, and the respondent is not entitled to a continuance of the injunction hearing absent a showing of good cause under… Read More

The trial court prejudicially erred in this asbestosis case in giving a causation instruction based on California law.  In an earlier writ proceeding, the Court of Appeal had held that Michigan law applies to this case, at least as against Marley-Wylain because the plaintiff worked in Michigan while employed by Marley-Wylain and was exposed to asbestos in Michigan during that… Read More

The Federal Housing Finance Agency's structure is unconstitutional in providing that the President can remove the head of that agency only for cause.  However, that fact does not invalidate the acts taken by the FHFA's head or entitle shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to damages unless they can prove that the restriction on the President's power (as opposed… Read More

1 28 29 30 31 32 59