The triall court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for an award of fees under CCP 2033.420(a) for proving facts stated in requests for admission that the defendant had wrongly denied. None of the grounds the trial court stated were supported by the evidence. Nor was the plaintiff required to allocate its fees to specific requests that defendant had… Read More
For an association to have standing to sue for its members, it must show that (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. … Read More
Disagreeing with Villacorta v. Cemex Cement, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1425, this decision holds that income a wrongfully terminated employee earns from another job after termination must be subtracted from her past economic damages for the wrongful termination whether or not the subsequent employment was not comparable or substantially similar to the job that was wrongfully terminated. The comparable or… Read More
When an appellate court’s reversal is accompanied by directions requiring specific proceedings on remand, those directions are binding on the trial court and must be followed. Here, the disposition language of the prior appellate decision directed a new trial of damages, which the trial court properly held. The opinion also contained advice on how the trial court should frame special… Read More
Under the deferential abuse of discretion standard used to review trial court orders granting a new trial, this decision affirms a new trial order based on juror misconduct. It finds there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's implied finding that the defendant had not forfeited its right to complain of bias by failing to act promptly (before verdict)… Read More
In determining whether a defendant's tortious conduct was the proximate cause of plaintiff's damage, the court must view the general set of circumstances not the particular facts of the case. So, here, the defendant escrow company's negligence in closing an escrow for the sale of a house led foreseeably to the seller's incurring damages in the form of attorney fees… Read More
The trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint in response to the trial court's ruling, before trial, on a motion in limine that plaintiff could not introduce evidence of attorney fees as damages under the tort of another theory because those damages were not alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff sought leave to amend to… Read More
An insurer may waive the insured's forfeiture of the policy through non-payment of the premium even though a loss has occurred during the period between lapse of the policy due to non-payment and reinstatement upon late payment of the premium. The loss-in-progress rule (Ins. Code 22, 250) does not prevent the insurer from waiving the forfeiture in this situation because… Read More
Following Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC (9th Cir. 2020) 983 F.3d 1115 and Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1702, this decision holds that the Court of Appeal lacks appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from a voluntary dismissal entered for the purpose of trying to appeal from an order compelling arbitration in a putative class action. It does… Read More
Distinguishing Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages, LLC (9th Cir. 2019) 940 F.3d 1130 as interpreting federal, not California law, and involving a one-time litigant against a repeat player, this decision holds that in a commercial, non-consumer, arbitration, California law does not require an arbitrator to disclose his 0.1 percent interest in JAMS. Arbitrators are required to disclose their relationship… Read More
Over a vigorous dissent, the majority holds that the adult daughter of the insureds under this homeowner's insurance policy does not have standing to sue the insurer for bad faith in regard to coverage for damage to the daughter's personal property that was damaged while in the insured premises. Only the parents were named insureds under the policy, which expressly… Read More
California's 2-year statute of limitations rather than Connecticut's 3-year statute of limitations applies to a products liability claim brought by plaintiff who then resided in and were injured in Connecticut by the defendant California manufacturer's malfunctioning medical robotic surgery device. A statute of limitations serves the state's interest in protecting its defendants against stale claims on which memories will have… Read More
BPI was a subcontractor on a public works project. The department found that BPI had not been paying its workers at the prevailing wage rate and issued a Civil Wage Penalty Assessment for the underpaid wages plus a statutory penalty. BPI claimed the general contractor was at fault for misinforming it about the prevailing wage rate. After BPI filed a… Read More
Plaintiff sued City in federal court, alleging both federal and state law claims arising from her arrest and strip search by City police officers. The federal jury rendered a verdict in the City's favor on the federal law claims. The federal court dismissed the state law negligence claims without prejudice. Plaintiff refiled those claims in state court. Following Hernandez v.… Read More
To establish organizational standing, the plaintiff associations needed to show that the challenged conduct frustrated their organizational missions and that they diverted resources to combat that conduct. Diversion of resources happens when the plaintiffs alter their resource allocation to combat the challenged practices, but not when they go about their business as usual. Here, the evidence on defendant's Rule 12(b)(1)… Read More
In a proceeding under 9 USC 7 to enforce a subpoena that an arbitrator has issued to a non-party witness, when no federal claim is at stake, a federal court has jurisdiction over the matter only if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction (including the amount in controversy requirement) are satisfied. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, if the value of… Read More
Following Zehia v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal..App.5th 543 and distinguishing Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, this decision holds that California may exercise specific jurisdiction over the Canadian resident defendant. He published defamatory internet postings about plaintiff, a California resident, on an internet site run by another California resident as well as on plaintiff's internet site. The… Read More
Plaintiff obtained an arbitration award against Adamstos which it sought to collect from Vigorous and Blue Wall as successor corporations or alter egos of Vigorous. Since the claim arose in admiralty, the court applied federal common law. Summary judgment was affirmed. Plaintiff failed to allege that Vigorous or Blue Wall received a transfer of all or substantially all Vigorous' assets… Read More
In a transactional legal malpractice case arising from the defendant lawyer's advising plaintiff to enter into two marketing contracts that conflicted with each other, the plaintiff had to show only that the lawyer's negligent advice was a substantial factor in causing her loss. This she did at least sufficiently to overcome summary judgment by showing that she was considering not… Read More
Questions of fact about when Greenberg's partner stopped working for plaintiff precluded summary judgment in Greenberg's favor on statute of limitations grounds. Read More
