The trial court abused its discretion in excluding an expert's opinion as to lost profits in ruling on a summary judgment motion. While most of his opinion was speculative, one part dealt with lost profits using a before-and-after method based on 16 months of actual profits earned before the allegedly harmful event. The before-and-after method is an approved way to… Read More
After a voluntary dismissal, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the plaintiff's claims but may still rule on ancillary matters not involving the merits, such as in this case, a motion to reconsider discovery sanctions that were issued based on the plaintiff's misleading statement of his lawyer's hourly rate without revealing that the lawyer had agreed… Read More
For specific jurisdiction is sufficient if the plaintiff's claim "arises from or is related to" the defendant's contacts with the forum state. Arises from describes a causal relationship between the defendants contacts and the claim. But relates to does not require causation. Here, Ford had substantial contacts with Montana and Minnesota, selling cars of the same type as those involved… Read More
USC did not exceed its jurisdiction in suspending Alpha Nu for six years as a result of its misconduct in hazing pledges during the 2016 rush week even though it acted on a complaint filed 14 months later. USC's internal disciplinary process is not governed by any statute of limitations. Here, the complaint was just two months later than USC's… Read More
The district court's transmittal of its remand order to the state court from which the action had been removed does not deprive the Court of Appeals of appellate jurisdiction to review the remand order. Also, 28 USC 1447(d) does not block review unless the remand is granted on one of the grounds allowed under 28 USC 1447(c)--i.e., lack of subject… Read More
Following Eisenberg Village, etc. v. Suffolk Construction Co., Inc. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1201, this decision holds that an owner's suit seeking disgorgement of compensation paid an unlicensed contractor is a suit for a statutory penalty governed by CCP 340(a)'s one-year statute of limitations. The discovery rule and other equitable doctrines do not operate to extend that one year limitations period. Read More
Gov. Code 91003 allows an attorney fee award to the prevailing party in an action seeking injunctive relief to enjoin violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of the Political Reform Act. This case holds that the statute does not pit impecunious plaintiffs against well-healed defendants. So, the prevailing party standard adopted in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994) 510… Read More
Judgment may not be entered against someone who has not been made a party to the suit even if that person funded the litigation. See Moore v. Kaufman (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 604. Read More
The first trial of this case resulted in a jury verdict for defendant on all seven of plaintiff's claims. The trial court granted plaintiff a new trial on three of her claims. The second trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff on all three of those claims. This decision holds that the jury verdicts on the four claims that were… Read More
Under the Rest.2d Conflicts of Law's most significant relationship test, the law of the state of incorporation governs a directors and officers liability policy rather than the law of the state where the corporate headquarters are located. The state of incorporation's law governs the directors' and officers' duties to the corporation, so it is logical that the same state's law… Read More
Under CCP 708.410, a judgment creditor may obtain a lien on the judgment debtor's right to obtain any money under a judgment, order or decree in any other action in which the judgment debtor is a party. This decision holds that the lien under sectin 708.410 attaches to money owed the judgment debtor under an order requiring the other party… Read More
In a construction dispute that originally was over $22,096, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff only $90,000 in attorney fees out of the $292,140 requested. The case was relatively simple, ultimately turning on the contractor's lack of a license and proper insurance. It involved only money, so it was reasonable to compare fees against recovery… Read More
Threatening or filing suit on a time-barred debt is a misleading and unfair debt collection practice violating 15 USC 1692e and 1692f. To allege and prove a violation of those sections, the debtor need not allege or prove that the debt collector knew the debt was time-barred. However, the debt collector may be able to establish an affirmative defense of… Read More
It is not per se a breach of the insurer's duty of good faith for it to fail to accept a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits. Accordingly, to support a bad faith judgment against the insurer, the jury must find that the insurer acted unreasonably in rejecting (or failing to accept) even a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits. … Read More
A request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right. For the purpose of Article III standing, nominal damages provide the necessary redress for a past, completed violation of a legal right. Read More
Ordinarily, a judgment dismissing a case on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over is not a judgment on the merits and does not operate as res judicata. However, in the unique context of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court has subject matter jurisdiction only if the complaint plausibly alleges all six elements of an FTCA… Read More
A proper 998 settlement offer must include a provision that allows the opposing party to accept the offer by signing a statement that the offer is accepted. A purported 998 offer lacking that provision cannot be used to shift costs if it is not accepted. (Puerta v. Torres (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1267.) This decision holds that the deficient offer also… Read More
Judgment for defendant is reversed. Plaintiff alleged that defendant sold plaintiff his membership interest in the LLC, which held a business tax registration certificate for selling marijuana in L.A., but after doing so secretly converted the LLC into a corporation of which he was the sole owner. The individual plaintiff had standing to sue for loss of her membership interest… Read More
The dormant Commerce Clause does not prohibit California from applying its labor laws to airline employees who reside or are employed predominantly in California. The airline's block time method of computing pay was similar to the pay scheme approved in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762, and so did not offend California Labor Code guarantees of… Read More
A defendant can be held liable for negligent misrepresentation on two disparate theories. First, under Rest.2d Torts section 311, a defendant may be liable for negligent misrepresentation in endorsing a product that physically harms the plaintiff. (See Hanberry v. Hearst Corp. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 680.) Here, plaintiff suffered no physical injury and so couldn't rely on that theory to pursue… Read More
