Federal courts lack Article III jurisdiction over portions of a PAGA suit that attack alleged wage and hour regulations which did not injure the named plaintiff. A PAGA suit does not fall within the qui tam action exception to the ordinary Article III requirement that the plaintiff has sustained injury from the wrong he sues to redress. Unlike a traditional… Read More
Plaintiff is a medical doctor specializing in pain management. CVS, a pharmacy, informed him it would no longer fill his patients' prescriptions, citing conerns he was over-prescribing controlled substances. Plaintiff sued for an injunction directing CVS to fill his prescriptions. Held, injunction properly denied. The State Board of Pharmacy has primary jurisdiction over the issues in this litigation. It enforces… Read More
Under Gov. Code 821.6, a public employee is immune from liability for instituting or prosecuting a judicial or administrative proceeding. That immunity extends to investigation activities that precede a potential judicial proceeding. This decision holds that the immunity applies to policemen who investigate a crime scene. So plaintiff cannot recover from the police or their public employer for the emotional… Read More
Under Fed. R. App. 39(a), the Court of Appeals determines which party is the prevailing party entitled to an award of costs on appeal, and it may, in its discretion, order that the prevailing party recover only some of the normally awardable costs on appeal. Under Fed. R. App. 39(e), costs for preparing and transmitting the record and appellate transcripts… Read More
BMW sent plaintiff a 998 offer, proposing to settle this personal injury case for $15,000 in exchange for a general release. The 998 offer did not mention entry of judgment against BMW or specify that plaintiff would file a dismissal with prejudice instead. Plaintiff accepted the offer. Then the parties disagreed about terms of the release and entry of judgment. … Read More
This decision holds that a suit filed by the decedent's heirs under CCP 377.32 was timely since it was filed within the limitations period even though the heirs didn't file the required declarations until after the limitations period expired and even though after probate proceedings were begun on the decedents' estates, the complaint was amended to name as an added… Read More
A defendant may challenge an order denying his forum non conveniens motion on an appeal from a final judgment even though CCP 418.10 allows a petition for writ of mandate from the order, just as it permits such a petition from denial of a motion to quash the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. But unlike the personal jurisdiction objection… Read More
Molfetta was White's criminal defense lawyer. After White was convicted, he requested Molfetta's files so he could prepare habeas corpus petitions. Molfetta failed to turn over the files. While some of the files were confidential and could not be turned over, most were not and should have been timely provided once White requested them. While condemning Molfetta's actions, this decision… Read More
On behalf of a putative class of prescription drug buyers, plaintiff alleged that Rite Aid reported inflated "usual and customary" drug prices to the pharmacy benefits managers which transmitted the inflated figures to plaintiffs' health insurers, causing the plaintiffs to pay higher than proper deductibles for the drugs. This decision affirms an order denying Rite Aid's motion to compel arbitration. … Read More
Under CCP 526a, as amended in 2018, to have standing to bring a taxpayer suit, the plaintiff must show that it or one of its members (a) resided within the jurisdiction of the governmental entity at suit and (b) within a year before the challenged governmental action paid a tax that funds that entity which is a property tax, an… Read More
Over a strong dissent, this decision holds that defendant agreed to an extension of the 3-year period in which to bring a case to trial after a reversal on appeal by orally agreeing in court to have the trial set on a specific date more than three years after the case was remanded to the trial court. (See CCP 583.330.) Read More
A new trial motion based on excessive damages must be made on the "minutes of the court." Unlike a new trial motion for juror misconduct, the excessive damage new trial motion may not be based on, and the trial court may not consider, evidence not admitted before the jury during the trial--such as in this case, the defendant's chart of… Read More
Under 28 USC 1447(d) an order remanding a case to state court is reviewable on appeal if the case was removed pursuant to 28 USC 1442 (federal officer) or 1443 (civil rights). This decision holds that on such an appeal, the appellate court may review all grounds on which the remand order was based. Review isn't limited to determining whether… Read More
This decision holds that the Anti-Injunction Act (28 USC 2283) does not bar a suit to enjoin the IRS from enforcing its regulation which requires tax payers and their material advisors from filing an informational notice about micro-captive insurance programs which the IRS thinks are often used to dodge taxes without actually providing insurance. The informational notice is not a… Read More
Borrower's fourth mortgage foreclosure delay suit was properly dismissed as barred by the res judicata effect of the prior three judgments against her, two of which had been affirmed on appeal. All the actions involved the same cause of action as they all asserted a violation of borrower's ownership interest in the property that was subject to her deed of… Read More
The district court did not err in reducing punitive damages against Monsanto for failure to warn of cancer risks from Roundup to a ratio of 3.8 to 1 to actual damages, though that ratio was on the borderline of being excessive. The harm caused was physical, yet the jury awarded plaintiff $5 million in actual damages, 96% of which was… Read More
Following Bates v. Dow Agrosciences (2005) 125 S.Ct. 1788, this decision holds that a state law claim for failure to warn of the dangers of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is not expressly or impliedly preempted by FIFRA. The warning that plaintiff claimed Monsanto should have put on Roundup labels was not in addition to or different from FIFRA's… Read More
Plaintiff obtained a default judgment awarding it the $100,000 he had lent defendant, plus a $100,000 "earn-out" fee, plus 10% interest on both of those sums. Defendant moved to set the judgment aside under CCP 473(d) and appealed from denial of his motion. Held, the judgment was in excess of jurisdiction in the sense that it was beyond the trial… Read More
Reconciling Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033 and Borsuk v. Appellate Division (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, this decision holds that a defendant in an unlawful detainer action may bring a motion to quash the special 5-day unlawful detainer summons on the ground that the complaint either alleges a claim entirely different from an unlawful detainer claim… Read More
Plaintiff successfully sued defendant for violating a conservation easement on his property. The trial court awarded plaintiff $2.9 million in attorney fees for five years of hard-fought litigation and a 19-day trial. This decision affirms the award. Plaintiff could recover fees for all hours spent by its attorneys though the first $500,000 in fees was paid for by its insurance. … Read More
